Is science faith-based?

[deRoy]

+1 for this.

 

[psychonaut]

I think the more fundamental axiom is: The Universe Exists (at all).


It's a pretty big leap to assume that the things we see "out there" correspond to actual objects in an actual space. Of course, we all act from this assumption, but it's more a description of human psychology than a proof that the external universe actually exists.

I think this point is more subtle than the fundee "Science is faith-based!" (which is a misunderstanding of science and well addressed by Phil here), but as long as we're talking axioms...

 

[iiwo]

Faith, by definition, is a confidence in things unseen, a certainty of things hoped for. (Loosely paraphrased from Hebrews 11)

Only in the loosest of definitions does 'science' fit this description. Science, or rather, the scientists "hope for" their hypothesis to be (in)correct. But that hope is hardly confidence--at least in the sense the author of Hebrews is using the word.

If anything, science (or at least the conclusion/theory part) is based on things SEEN and TESTED.

Where evangelists try to cop out is with the "we weren't there so we don't know" part of science. We didn't see dinosaurs, three foot dragonflies, tiktallik, or the big bang. Therefore it's faith. They circumvent the part where scientists announce HOW they know these things and simply use a line such as "we know, therefore we know", twisted in such a way as to do a mobius strip proud.

Science is not faith based, but it is often twisted or tweaked to make it appear as if it is. This is a (pun intended) tried and true hypothesis theory of mine.

 

[Parasitic]

The scientific method itself proves why such things like religion dont add up.
if there is such as one flaw in science, you must start the experiment, or what ever you doing again. from grade 1 science, to PHD level Astrology and physics. There must be no mistakes, or you become a scientist that is disrespected in the community.

I do not have a PHD in science, but, When out of high school i would like to try for physics, because of theese facts.

THERE CAN BE ABSOLUTELY NO MISTAKES.
That being said,
It cannot be based on faith.
You get people like steven jones when you make mistakes.

 

[melodious]

It only took one quote in the Bible to allow me to see how science and God are connected.

God is light.

Light is energy

and this falls under Einstein's law of thermo dynamics: I & II.

 

[iiwo]

The scientific method itself proves why such things like religion dont add up.
if there is such as one flaw in science, you must start the experiment, or what ever you doing again. from grade 1 science, to PHD level Astrology and physics. There must be no mistakes, or you become a scientist that is disrespected in the community.

I do not have a PHD in science, but, When out of high school i would like to try for physics, because of theese facts.

THERE CAN BE ABSOLUTELY NO MISTAKES.
That being said,
It cannot be based on faith.
You get people like steven jones when you make mistakes.

Good sentiment, I would alter it only slightly. "There can be absolutely no mistakes" left unaccounted for or uncorrected.

There will always be mistakes--one of the many goals of science is to make new experiments work based on previous ones, and previous ones better based on newer ones and/or newer materials, ideas, and equipment.

 

[Raze]

[...]

and this falls under Einstein's law of thermo dynamics: I & II.

Einstein's law of thermodynamics?

 

[Kritikos]

if there is such as one flaw in science, you must start the experiment, or what ever you doing again. from grade 1 science, to PHD level Astrology and physics. There must be no mistakes, or you become a scientist that is disrespected in the community.

I do not have a PHD in science, but, When out of high school i would like to try for physics, because of these facts.

THERE CAN BE ABSOLUTELY NO MISTAKES.
That being said,
It cannot be based on faith.
You get people like steven jones when you make mistakes.

Good sentiment, I would alter it only slightly. "There can be absolutely no mistakes" left unaccounted for or uncorrected.

And I would alter the reference to "PHD level Astrology and physics." I hope that Cityinruin meant "astronomy." I don't think that you can get a Ph.D. in astrology, and in any case, it is not science.

 

[Stacy Head]

It only took one quote in the Bible to allow me to see how science and God are connected.

God is light.

Light is energy

and this falls under Einstein's law of thermo dynamics: I & II.

The bible is fiction

Einstein's law of thermodynamics is a theory based on scientific study

Science is not based on faith in response to your response.

Next...

 

[!Kaggen]

"one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules"

I am still not sure why this assumption is not an "a priori synthetic judgement", correct me if I am wrong?
Why can't one develop a theory of knowledge without any assumptions then the faith accusation will die the death it deserves?

 

[!Kaggen]

"one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules"
This is still an "a priori synthetic judgement".
Why can't we attempt a theory of knowledge without any assumptions?
I do not see how this will affect the validity of science at all.
It will however get rid of the question around faith once and for all.

 

[Raze]

"one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules"
This is still an "a priori synthetic judgement".
Why can't we attempt a theory of knowledge without any assumptions?
I do not see how this will affect the validity of science at all.
It will however get rid of the question around faith once and for all.

Before you go there you have to ask the question, "what does the question 'Is science faith-based' mean?"

Is math based on faith? According to one interpretation of the question, yes. Because the entire structure of mathematics rests upon axioms that cannot be proven mathematically (the assumption that x = x). Then again, on the other hand, an axiom is self-evident. And so you could argue that math is not faith-based, at least within the context of mathematics.

In fact, you can go DesCartes' route and say that mathematics rests upon the assumption that an "Evil Genius" isn't tricking us every step of the way with faulty logic that we think is correct logic.

But within the context of mathematics, I doubt you will find a mathematician or anyone competent within mathematics that will say that math is based upon anything other than rigorous logic.


As for science, the question of whether or not science is faith-based is one that lies outside of science in the first place. As is the question of whether or not our senses are perceiving any "true" data from the universe, or whether any "true" data can even be ascertained in any way, or whether the universe behaves in any way that can be modeled scientifically. None of these are in the domain of science. And I would say that science is not "based on" any of them. Science is based upon experimental data that can be analyzed and quantified.

Whether or not experimental data that can be analyzed and quantified exists is entirely independent of whether or not science exists, because science is nothing but a method of inquiry. In order for science to be carried out, then there must be something that can be examined, but it doesn't follow that the scientist must be in principle able to quantify something in nature to be doing science. The scientist could be forever doomed to fail in all his endeavors, yet still be doing science.

Of course, I am quite sure this is not where the thread is supposed to go, and I am a terrible armchair philosopher, so I'll let it lie here and look at it from a different angle.






During the scientific method, a scientist will make hypotheses about something s/he observers. S/he will then formulate mathematical laws predicting the behavior of the system s/he is analyzing. At this point, you could argue that the scientist is having faith that his/her hypothesis is the best of all the possible hypotheses s/he could formulate given his/her knowledge of the system. But the scientific method continues, and the hypothesis is tested. Then when inevitably the hypothesis turns out to not be perfect, the scientist modifies the hypothesis. This process continues until the scientist's hypothesis matches the data in all cases to the degree that measurement capabilities allow.

Then, again, you could say faith comes into play: the scientist has faith s/he has formed a good theory. Not an absolutely correct one, however, since any good scientist will be aware that there will probably always be limits to any theory, as time has shown again and again that new testing leads to new modification of theory.

So, although science is not based on faith, faith is not excluded from the scientific process in action.

Alright, I give up at the moment. Sorry for the extra boring post.

 

[Blutarsky]

Science is, on a very basic level, based upon certain belief in ideas that are completely unprovable by the scientific method such as logic and reason. Science presupposes logic, so to argue that the scientific method can "prove" that logic exists would be to argue in circles.

Whether you consider that a priori or "properly basic" belief to be "faith" or not seems to be an exercise in splitting hairs to me...

Einstein's law of thermodynamics is a theory based on scientific study

It may come as a shock to you, but there are many presuppositions that are completely unprovable scientifically that form the basis for scientific ideas such as the theory of relativity. For example, the belief that the speed of light is constant between any two points in space. We "believe" this to be true, but it's completely unprovable. You can find many of these suppositions in various scientific disciplines.

What also interests me is why the universe behaves according to any particular set of rules to begin with...

 

[likelystory]

People have the ambition to succeed in Science.So I say it's faith which drives people to succeed in reaching possible scientific conclusions.

I don't believe people only use the belief called ''faith'' for religion only.

Faith covers a broad spectrum of things.

 

[joesixpack]

I always thought of science as "Doubt" based. I mean, after all, where would science be without the testing of assumptions and asking questions?

 

[blobru]

I always thought of science as "Doubt" based. I mean, after all, where would science be without the testing of assumptions and asking questions?

Nowhere.

That's the key right there, joe.

In science, doubt combats faith; in religion, faith combats doubt.

No human activity is free of "faith", but the scientific ideal is.

 

[Bill Thompson]

only fake science is faith based.
like BYU fact finding missions to support their fath.

 

[stevea]

Hmm - I think there is something to this, but ...

First "science" does not presuppose that the universe must obey rules. It only attempts to model observations of the universe with rules. It's foolish to confuse the model with reality (which is were David Hume's point comes it). Further we underestand in recent decades that here are fundamental limitations to our observations which restrict our ability to form models.

Now the person who believes that the preponderance of past observations can be extrapolated to the future, or more colloquially believes that his brakes will operate as before barring a defect, is exhibiting the same sort of faith that all of probability is built upon.

Science is an extremely successful and useful model making method, but it does not deserve our faith - only the recognition that it is effective and pragmatic.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Funny. The more the evidence accumulates, the stronger my faith becomes.

 

[stevea]

Funny. The more the evidence accumulates, the stronger my faith becomes.

But you have no evidence the Sun will shine or even that gravity will exist tomorrow ! It's extrapolation from past experience, not evidence at work. Scientists have faith that tomorrow will be a lot like yesterday and often assume without evidence that yesterday was a lot like today.