Science vs. faith

[RandFan]

You assign a position to me not of my making. I haven't said that scientists claim "their hypothesis is truth based on. . .faith." I have said that it takes faith to undertake the often arduous process of validating a hypothesis.

But you are trying to compare the faith of believers with the faith of science. I'm disambiguating your equivocation of the word faith.

Believers: truth is based on faith.
Scientists: truth is based on empirical facts.

 

[RandFan]

I'm surprised you didn't know that the process of establishing the veracity of the hypothesis requires an act of faith.

You are equivocating. The scientist is acting on intuition, probabilities and faith in the scientific method. Scientists do not have religious like blind faith. Further, they don't form their conclusions about truth based simply on blind faith. A hunch does not become truth without verification.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You are equivocating. The scientist is acting on intuition, probabilities and faith in the scientific method. Scientists do not have religious like blind faith. Further, they don't form their conclusions about truth based simply on blind faith. A hunch does not become truth without verification.

I never like to use the word "faith" to describe trust based on past experience. It tends to confuse the issue regarding the other definition of "faith" as belief without evidence, or in spite of contradictory evidence.

 

[RandFan]

I never like to use the word "faith" to describe trust based on past experience. It tends to confuse the issue regarding the other definition of "faith" as belief without evidence, or in spite of contradictory evidence.

I avoid it like the plague. It far too easily invites this kind of equivocation.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Really? Why then do scientists posit hypotheses if they have no faith their theories will be validated?

Because they want to test whether they are true or not. If they are not, then they know that they must endeavor to formulate a new hypothesis.

Non-believers tend to suppose that humankind--encased in a mortal shell with only five senses--is omniscient, and that science and technology make them all-knowing. Nope.

Your last word is actually correct, because the preceding sentence is false.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . The scientist is acting on intuition, probabilities and faith in the scientific method.

Some scientists have acted on "faith in the scientific method" and on religious faith. Case in point: Gregor Mendel, the "father of modern genetics," was a scientist and Augustinian friar. He drew inspiration for his work not only from his professors but also from the friars at the monastery.

: Scientists do not have religious like blind faith. Further, they don't form their conclusions about truth based simply on blind faith. A hunch does not become truth without verification.

You are projecting, the better to gain argumentive leverage. I have never said scientists "have religious-like blind faith," though you have no way of knowing if some scientists do not have religion-based faith.

 

[RandFan]

Some scientists have acted on "faith in the scientific method" and on religious faith. Case in point: Gregor Mendel, the "father of modern genetics," was a scientist and Augustinian friar. He drew inspiration for his work not only from his professors but also from the friars at the monastery.

Being a friar doesn't change anything but you are equivocating.

You are projecting, the better to gain argumentive leverage. I have never said scientists "have religious-like blind faith," though you have no way of knowing if some scientists do not have religion-based faith.

I know you haven't. You are equivocating. I'm not going to discuss this here anymore. You can start a thread (see below).

We seem to be wandering off topic a bit. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, remember?

Yeah, it's OT.

 

[skyrider44]

Because they want to test whether they are true or not. If they are not, then they know that they must endeavor to formulate a new hypothesis.

And that process ("formulat[ing] a new hypothesis") requires some form of faith, principally scientific but not necessarily exclusively (see my post re. Gregor Mendel).

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'm surprised you didn't know that the process of establishing the veracity of the hypothesis requires an act of faith.

No, it doesn't. I does require curiosity, but not faith.

If one wishes to answer a question regarding a metaphysical phenomenon using the scientific method, one must first postulate a potential answer to the question in a way that can be tested. If one fails to disprove the hypothesis one tests it again, and again, and again. Then one passes the hypothesis and the method of testing it on to others who will continue to test it exhaustively.

If one disproves the hypothesis, then it is discarded and one attempts to formulate a new hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Some scientists have acted on "faith in the scientific method" and on religious faith. Case in point: Gregor Mendel, the "father of modern genetics," was a scientist and Augustinian friar. He drew inspiration for his work not only from his professors but also from the friars at the monastery.

What was his hypothesis, and what faith was it based on?

You are projecting, the better to gain argumentive leverage. I have never said scientists "have religious-like blind faith," though you have no way of knowing if some scientists do not have religion-based faith.

Perhaps we should more carefully define the word "faith" prior to proceeding. The definition of faith we are using is "belief with out evidence, or in spite of evidence". There are other definitions of faith that include "trust based on experience". We are not talking about that usage of the word.

 

[Foster Zygote]

And that process ("formulat[ing] a new hypothesis") requires some form of faith, principally scientific but not necessarily exclusively (see my post re. Gregor Mendel).

One does not believe in an hypothesis. If that were the case, there would be no reason to do science.

 

[The Norseman]

Some scientists have acted on "faith in the scientific method" and on religious faith. Case in point: Gregor Mendel, the "father of modern genetics," was a scientist and Augustinian friar. He drew inspiration for his work not only from his professors but also from the friars at the monastery.

You are projecting, the better to gain argumentive leverage. I have never said scientists "have religious-like blind faith," though you have no way of knowing if some scientists do not have religion-based faith.

You are equivocating, the better to gain argumentative leverage. What opinions or facts would you like to share regarding the LDS church and its founders or tenets?

 

[bruto]

Some scientists have acted on "faith in the scientific method" and on religious faith. Case in point: Gregor Mendel, the "father of modern genetics," was a scientist and Augustinian friar. He drew inspiration for his work not only from his professors but also from the friars at the monastery.



You are projecting, the better to gain argumentive leverage. I have never said scientists "have religious-like blind faith," though you have no way of knowing if some scientists do not have religion-based faith.

So the word has more than one meaning, and your original statement was of little if any use, unless you are still trying to suggest that there's a religious element to "faith in the scientific method" which really just means believing things for which evidence is presented.

It's true that Mendel had religious faith, as do many scientists, but the reason his genetic studies remain relevant is that he knew the difference.

And by the way, I've actually known a minor scientist or two, and you are not really correct in your initial assumption that a scientist undertakes an experiment out of faith that his hypothesis will be validated. He or she undertakes it out of the expectation (faith of a different sort) that it will be tested. Of course if you have a pet theory you'd like to see it shown to be true, but a negative result is a result too. An experiment that fails well is a good result, answering a question and ending a false trail, and a good scientist will accept it just as readily, which certainly distinguishes the scientist's "faith" from that of many religions.

The fact that a word like "faith" has multiple meanings and gradations is an issue that has been done to death by linguists, philosophers, scientists and theologians. It does a person little credit to throw it back into the fray as if it hasn't.

 

[tsig]

And that process ("formulat[ing] a new hypothesis") requires some form of faith, principally scientific but not necessarily exclusively (see my post re. Gregor Mendel).

How much faith do you have when you turn on the light switch?

 

[Foster Zygote]

An experiment that fails well is a good result, answering a question and ending a false trail, and a good scientist will accept it just as readily, which certainly distinguishes the scientist's "faith" from that of many religions.

Joobz has mentioned that he'd like to see a database of failed hypotheses maintained, to avoid the waste of resources associated with researchers retreading the same ground simply because failed hypotheses tend to be discarded without ever being published. There's also the benefit that someone working in the same field might search the database, find what others have attempted, and see it from a different perspective that might lead to some new insight.

 

[Giordano]

And that process ("formulat[ing] a new hypothesis") requires some form of faith, principally scientific but not necessarily exclusively (see my post re. Gregor Mendel).

Your use of the term faith for both is quite incorrect. I might say informally that I "love" a good book, but that is not really the same meaning of that word as when I say that I love my wife.

Scientists don't even have absolute faith in the scientific method itself! Scientists may assume that the scientific method is a useful tool, but they nonetheless run experiments to confirm that the method is applicable to their particular experiment. These experiments include both negative and positive controls, independent replicates, and double blind experiments, all of which are predicated on the assumption that a human being can easily be mislead and that it is important to not let one's prejudices influence one's conclusions. They also are tests of if that particular question can even be resolved by that particular scientific approach.

Scientists try to disprove their hypotheses and theories and question their own results. So please explain how this process is the same as religious faith?

Yes some scientists are also religious, but they necessarily approach these two aspects of their lives very differently.

 

[skyrider44]

No, it doesn't. I does require curiosity, but not faith.

If one wishes to answer a question regarding a metaphysical phenomenon using the scientific method, one must first postulate a potential answer to the question in a way that can be tested. If one fails to disprove the hypothesis one tests it again, and again, and again. Then one passes the hypothesis and the method of testing it on to others who will continue to test it exhaustively.

If one disproves the hypothesis, then it is discarded and one attempts to formulate a new hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.

Recommended reading: The Faith of Scientists in Their Own Words (Nancy K. Frankenberry); Scientists of Faith: 48 Biographies of Historic Scientists and Their Christian Faith (Dan Graves); Men of Science, Men of God (Henry M. Morris); Scientists Who Believe: 21 Tell Their Own Stories (Eric C. Barrett).

 

[Foster Zygote]

Recommended reading: The Faith of Scientists in Their Own Words (Nancy K. Frankenberry); Scientists of Faith: 48 Biographies of Historic Scientists and Their Christian Faith (Dan Graves); Men of Science, Men of God (Henry M. Morris); Scientists Who Believe: 21 Tell Their Own Stories (Eric C. Barrett).

You seem to be conflating the personal beliefs of scientists with their scientific research. A christian scientist working in the field of biomedical chemical engineering is going to practice his science the same way as a Muslim scientist or an atheist scientist.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . It's true that Mendel had religious faith, as do many scientists, but the reason his genetic studies remain relevant is that he knew the difference.

His genetic discoveries remain relevant because he brought to bear both scientific and religious faith.

He or she undertakes it out of the expectation (faith of a different sort) that it will be tested.

Some people find refuge in semantic manipulation.

 

[Foster Zygote]

His genetic discoveries remain relevant because he brought to bear both scientific and religious faith.

How, precisely, did his religious faith impact on his scientific work? Would his results have been different had he been a Hindu, a Sikh or an atheist?