Science is NOT faith-based!

Earthborn said:
Take history for example. You can't directly experiment on the past, you can't make predictions in the form of "what would happen if I did this", and our views of long lost times are inevitably coloured by the views and beliefs we have today. The information is scarce and consists largely of the written accounts of people who were subjective themselves. On top of all that, historical events aren't effects that have clearly identifiable causes that made them inevitable.
Click to expand...

History isn't a sience, it's a pursuit. For all the reasons you've given there.
 
Dr. Trintignant said:
That's interesting that you bring that up, because I was considering bringing up something along the same lines; the "axiom of choice". It's absolutely true that you can treat the parallel postulate as either true or false and still come up with consistent results.

The axiom of choice is also interesting--again, you get consistent results whether you accept or reject it. But accepting it happens to be more practical--you can prove more things if you assume its truth. So that's what most mathematicians do nowadays.
Click to expand...
Ooh! Yes, the axiom of choice is one of my favorites. I like to refer to it as the God Hypothesis, because assuming it's true is equivalent to assuming some god-like being exists to create unmeasureable sets.

Mathematics is completely consistent whether you assume it true or not. I have heard that some mathematicians are really indignant about it, but I don't know any like that personally. It does allow proofs of some very intriguing results and seemingly contradictory results.

Remember that my original assertion referred to a specific kind of god; one that was capable and willing to plant evidence. We can say for instance that the young-Earth creationist god is either of this kind of does not exist, because the evidence flatly contradicts it.
Click to expand...
Whoops. No, I hadn't realized you were referring to a specific kind of god. Thanks for the clarification.
A theistic scientist could believe in a completely non-interventionist god, but in practice this is indistinguishable from atheism. A god that never bends the laws of nature is no different than the invisible pink unicorns.

So we're left with theistic scientists that believe in a god that sometimes does bend the laws. But not when science is practiced? Like the mathematician, we have a situation where you can believe something is either true or false, but not at the same time (at least not consistently). When doing science, our theistic scientist is indistinguishable from an atheist.
Click to expand...

I disagree that belief in a non-interventionist god is indistinguishable from atheism, but you have a valid point regarding the belief in interventionist gods. That's probably why so few scientists hold fundamentalist type religious beliefs. I understand such beliefs are less prevalent among scientists than the general population.
One more thing: I don't really know any mathematicians, but I doubt any would claim to "believe" in the axiom of choice (say). They might well do their work under the assumption that it's true, but that does not constitute "belief".
Click to expand...
I'm a mathematician (statistician actually) and yes, that's exactly what we do. Assuming something true for the purpose of analysis does not require us to believe it to be true. In fact, when doing hypothesis testing, the standard approach is to assume true what you hope to prove false.
A scientist could do the same thing in principle, and say that they do not need to believe that supernatural events do not occur, and only that their work follows from the proposition that they don't. But I'll bet that most scientists don't do this--they actively believe the universe is entirely natural. So I think there is a difference here between mathematicians and scientists.

- Dr. Trintignant
Click to expand...

I think you are right about that.
 
Last edited:
There are any number of testable claims for the gods people believe in. You can test if there was a worldwide flood, whether or not prayers are answered, whether there is any inexplicable information in the Bible, and so on. The evidence is overwhelming that god beliefs are made up by people. I would wager most people have no trouble whatsoever recognizing that fact when it comes to god beliefs of ancient Greece or Hawaiian beliefs in Pele. The problem is many of those same people cannot see that their belief in the Biblical god is no different.
 
The Bad Astronomer said:
Folks--

I put up a blog entry today called "Is Science faith-based?" because I am good and sick of hearing the definition of science abused by the willfully (and woefully) ignorant.

I'm curious about peoples' thoughts on this. I hope this is useful.
Click to expand...

Great job. The recurring claim that both religion and science are faith-based is a pet peeve of mine too.

I would only change one thing: your basic assumption for science. You say it is that "the universe obeys rules", and that the successful theories and predictions built on that assumption support it. In other words, "it works".

I think that is the basic assumption of science: "it works"; that is, "that working knowledge of the universe is possible". That it seems to me is the criterion for all scientific knowledge. "The universe obeys rules" is then an hypothesis evaluated according to this more basic criterion. If the only axiom of science is that it works, that we can predict more with it than without it, then other assumptions are judged by how well they allow us to make accurate predictions, by how well they work. And the basis, "it works", is verified each time a successful prediction is made; a theory revised; working knowledge expanded.

In cases where assumptions can't be tested, e.g. isometry, they are stated as explicit limits on the accuracy of our working knowledge of the universe, no more. As limits, they need not be taken on faith, as science does not require absolutes.

That's where science and religion part company, it seems to me. The basic religious assumption is that absolute knowledge of the universe, the sort that is true by definition, is possible, is necessary even! Experience teaches limits; faith is the denial of those limits. It is an existential committment to believe the word of authority, without question. Religious axioms such as "God exists" are not working hypotheses or well-tested theories, they are absolute, authoritative truths. Necessary because religion in general assumes that only absolute certainty can give the lives of the faithful meaning, and inspire them to be good.

The religious attitude of faith in its eternal Truths then is the precise opposite of science's chronic doubt, experimentation and revision. Faith is non-science. A scientist who replaced working theory with absolute knowledge, doubt with faith, would be out of a job. (And a priest, vice versa...)
 
Last edited:
Hey, if science is NOT faith based,

then String Theory is NOT science.
 
A lot of discussion in here about God, which makes sense as it is a faith-based thread.

If there is a God, He is all-knowing, which included knowing which atoms will undergo decay, which slit a photon will squeeze through, etc.

Just because modern science cannot predict these things, that does not preclude an omniscient being from doing so.
 
I'm not a believer

PixyMisa said:
What aspect of String Theory involves faith?

Be specific.
Click to expand...

These are two that I think require some amount of what you would call faith.

1. Eleven (or more) space-time dimensions
2. Particles are strings vibrating at fundamental frequencies

But, as you may have surmised, I am certainly not a String Theory expert.
 
Faith is all about supposed knowledge through belief without or despite evidence...

Science is all about understanding and knowing through evidence.

Science is about facts that are the same for everybody whether they believe them or understand them or not--just like math. Whatever the nature of our universe is--it is the same for everybody no matter what they believe. Science aims to understand that.

Faith pretends to know it.

I don't know what woo leader started this inane meme that science is a faith-- but he's done a disservice to those who already have trouble thinking logically and who are ready to find "depth" in any platitude that supports their pet delusion.

Usually the rhetoric will state something like "scientists have faith the sun will come up tomorrow...". I respond, that the sun appears to come up whether I believe it will or not. Science tells us that this is an illusion of perspective due to our planet rotating toward the sun each morning and away each evening. The bible explains this with the notion that "God said, 'let there be light'". The latter is an example of faith. The former is an example of science. The former is empirically supportable and true no matter what a person believes. The latter is a platitude that people give their own subjective meaning to.

If you can't tell the difference, I suspect you've got a woo-based meme affliction. Read Phil Plait's post and compare and contrast the example above.
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
Faith is all about supposed knowledge through belief without or despite evidence...
Click to expand...

Skeptigirl, I guess by precise definition, you are correct, those are hypotheses.

However, faith is by definition a belief not based on truth or proof, and lot's of people seem to believe in String Theory.

Keith
 
Wangler said:
Skeptigirl, I guess by precise definition, you are correct, those are hypotheses.

However, faith is by definition a belief not based on truth or proof, and lot's of people seem to believe in String Theory.

Keith
Click to expand...
Even if some scientists were convinced string theory was correct, none of them would say it was proved in the way we see overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution for example. But that is beside the point anyway.

There is a big difference in supplying temporary hypotheses in order to think about a problem than in what having "faith' something is correct means. In fact, that can be taken even farther to describe the difference between faith and science. Hypotheses and theories are always based on the supporting evidence. They are never based on faith the conclusions drawn about the supporting evidence are correct. Even the observations of the evidence are subject to correction. The only thing that isn't temporary or contingent is the actual evidence. The Universe exists. Our observations and conclusions of the Universe are what we go on at the moment. But being convinced there is overwhelming evidence supporting some conclusion does not mean we have faith in that conclusion. We may act on the conclusion, or base something else on it. But it is recognized at any time an observation or a conclusion is subject to revision with potential new observations or revelations. There is no faith involved, only working premises, hypotheses, and theories.
 
Last edited:
Wangler said:
However, faith is by definition a belief not based on truth or proof, and lot's of people seem to believe in String Theory.
Click to expand...

If "lots of people" means dozens of them, you may be right. Many mathematicians and physicists have chosen to pursue string theory as the best route to achieving something notable in their careers, but that's not at all the same as "belief" in string theory. There's been plenty of undergraduate enthusiasm, of course, but that doesn't count for much, and has faded in recent times.

Bose and Einstein are the new cool ...
 
Moreover, believing that string theory is the best explanation for observed data is about assessing probabilities... whereas faith tends to be out believing in some entity or power that is invisible, immeasurable, and not proven to exist. Faith appears to be indistinguishable from a delusion as far as the evidence is concerned. Believing that string theory is the best explanation is about using the available evidence to assess probabilities.

If you can't tell the difference, blame the person who put the silly meme in your head about science being faith based. We don't fly in airplanes nor use computers based on faith... We don't use faith to heal broken bones. If you are unclear on the difference between faith based modes of thinking and evidence based modes of thinking, you are vulnerable to all kinds of woo. The more you argue that the two are the same, the more you guarantee your ignorance on the subject.
 
articulett said:
Moreover, believing that string theory is the best explanation for observed data is about assessing probabilities... whereas faith tends to be out believing in some entity or power that is invisible, immeasurable, and not proven to exist. Faith appears to be indistinguishable from a delusion as far as the evidence is concerned. Believing that string theory is the best explanation is about using the available evidence to assess probabilities.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you are saying here, but it seems as if everyone wants to make the faith/science thing black and white. I think that there is some grey area here.

I am not sure that many people would devote their life to persuing a theory, unless they felt it worthwhile. Isn't it a form of faith that you are persuing this theory, that may prove to be bunk?

Some folks may be able to make a life choice based solely upon facts and hypotheses, but I have to believe that most people cannot completely turn off their intuition, belief, and yes, faith. If they can, that may make them excellent scientists, but crummy people persons.

articulett said:
We don't fly in airplanes nor use computers based on faith....
Click to expand...

No of course not. But, when the sound barrier was broken in controlled flight for the first time, there was much speculation about what might happen, to both pilot and aircraft. Most had some basis in evidence or sound scientific reasoning. Did the pilot compose a mental list of the evidence, evaluate to the best of his technical expertise, and proceed? Yes, but unless he was a robot, part of his psyche told him it was alright to proceed. Whatever his mind processed in terms of evidentiary data before he took the plunge, a certain (if small) amount of faith was involved.

I think that many smart people shun faith in all of it's forms, because it implies some amount of uncertainty, and inability to describe and define things.

I also think that many people have their critical thinking processes thwarted by an overabundance of faith.

And about the computers, no we don't use computers by faith, unless they are running Windows. :)
 
Okay... I think we agree for the most part. I don't think of myself of a person with much faith in anything... I've never been good at "believing". I feel like a trust some information or give some information greater credulity or probability of being true based on evidence and passed experience... but I'm pretty skeptical of anything that sounds "wooish"-- and, so far, that has served me well.

I really want to know if something is true or not... and I'd prefer not knowing than to believe a lie. I don't know enough about string theory to have a strong opinion as to how probable it is and what evidence supports it. But I think opinions about string theory are like opinions about life on other planets. I consider them both possible based on what I know of the evidence. But that isn't "faith". I don't see any evidence that any sort of consciousness can exist absent a material brain nor that there are any divine truths. I don't "believe in" such things.

On the other hand, I know how life evolved on this planet and that scientists have good reasons for considering string theory among other theories for the "nature" of our universe... that constitutes enough evidence to understand that such things are more probable than supernatural entities or forces. When you believe that something is "objectively true" such as the existence of a conscious being who created this world for a reason, you must use faith... because there is no evidence to suggest there can be a conscious being who is invisible and immeasurable and lacks a material brain.

In faith based notions you presuppose an answer, and then look for the information that supports that answer. Very often, the answer is non-falsifiable...that is, even if it's wrong, you could never prove it was wrong to yourself or anyone else. Science is the very opposite. There is only one truth, or rather, --one reality, and it doesn't care whether humans have "faith" in it or understand it...

Whether you are running Windows, Linux, or Mac-- the faith you place in the process is irrelevant to whether the process works. As far as I can tell, faith is relatively useless and hard to make yourself have. I prefer to use the term trust when I am using past information to give me confidence in how things are likely to work in the future. I tend to assess a computer's operating system according to how well that system (or that computer) has worked for me in the past. Although it was a joke, I really don't use the term "faith" when the word "trust" or "hope" or "assessing the probability of" or "speculate" are more accurate words for what I a person is doing. In the example above, the pilot has confidence from prior experiences-- not "faith". In regards to the sound barrier, we had expectations base on information we had been accumulating. When we crack a whip, the cracking sound is actually a mini sonic boom. We had a hypothesis, which was falsifiable, and we did tests and got an answer that matched our hypothesis. That would be true no matter how much somebody did or didn't have "faith" in what would happen when something moved faster than sound. See the difference?

I think you are using the word "faith" too broadly to make it meaningful in an effort to have there be more shades of gray than there actually are... to make the overlap more fuzzy and inclusive of some kinds of woo. Faith usually involves unfalsifiable notions, doesn't it? --things that cannot be proven false no matter how misguided they are. You can't prove that humans don't get possessed by demons, for example... so to believe they do, is unfalsifiable... an act of faith. You can't prove that astrology doesn't every work... only show that there is no evidence that it does. When we speak of "people of faith", we are definitely talking about this kind of faith--the unfalsifiable kind--the kind where a person believes in something for which there is no objectively measurable evidence.

When most scientists have a theory or hypothesis, they seek to disprove it as well as to prove it, because both types of information are useful for understanding the truth. That is contrary to faith. With faith, the "belief" is the "proof". And I don't think faith or lack of it have anything to do with whether anyone is or isn't a people person. James Randi is quite a people person, but I doubt he'd claim to have "faith" in anything.

Faith is mostly associated with belief in the supernatural... or belief without or despite evidence-- often because the believer has been told that it is good or useful to have faith in a given proposition and/or bad not to. Those who consider themselves to be people "of faith" also tend to believe themselves ennobled for having whatever it is they have faith in. A believer is told that if something isn't working right, it's because they don't have enough faith. And if things work out well, they often wrongly attribute it to their faith--they see it as "proof" that they have faith in the right notion.

I don't think you'd say a mathematician has faith that all right triangles can be assessed via Pythagoras' Theory... and yet they have good reason to presume this is so... Science is much more akin to that than it is to most peoples' notions of faith. When we say "people of faith", we aren't talking about people who say things like "the square of the sides of a right triangle are equal to the square of it's hypotenuse", right?

I think a lot of people here shun faith because it's useless and because the faithful often sound daft and like they are playing word games to keep pretending to themselves their particular brand of faith is true while understanding that other woo is laughable. I don't find people of "faith" quite as endearing as they imagine themselves. I think all people presume that others who believe as they do are better people. I, a person without faith, tend to think so as well. And I don't think scientists or skeptics have less feelings or "intuition" than people of faith. They just don't want to be fooled by such.

Most scientists and skeptics don't like people to use the word faith too sloppily. We understand why people do it, but we tend to avoid doing so so as not to be lumped in with such fuzzy thinking. You don't need faith for science (or magic tricks) to work just like you don't need faith for math to work. In many ways, science is the opposite of faith.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure that many people would devote their life to persuing a theory, unless they felt it worthwhile. Isn't it a form of faith that you are persuing this theory, that may prove to be bunk?
Click to expand...

If you want to make an analogy then a good scientist is a religious whore - he's only interested in what he can get out of the gods.

If they are not giving up the goodies he is not interested - waiting around endlessly for promises to be fulfilled is not his modus operandi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom