Science is NOT faith-based!

[cyborg]

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.

Here are some things that require faith:

1. Four space-time dimensions
2. Particles are small pieces of existence

I don't see any axes around that label dimensions and I certainly can't see any particles that are too small to see by definition.

 

[blauregen]

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?

My understanding was that mathematics as an axiomatic system is one of the few areas where there is truth. A mathematician in her field is in no need of faith. It may not be complete, but it is consistent. Any isomorphic structures between mathematics and observable phenomena are nice, but not inherent to mathematics.

Anyone in a field interpreting observations has to trust in their theories, and often with very good reason, because the theory allows to predict a behavior and so far hopefully has withstood falsification attempts in their area of application. A theory isn't necessarily reliable outside it's area of application. Newtonian physics, as an example,allows predictions until you deal with very small or very fast objects. Otherwise you apply a more inclusive theory.

Trust in theories includes theories that only allow approximate predictions. I you can consistently predict that around n% of a testgroup subjected to stimulus m will show behavior p, then you have a working model. It does not necessarily represent any kind of truth, but it is applicable to the area of application of your theory.

If you have observable phenomena in a significant amount and state that you can make predictions then you may have a hypothesis which may be verified or falsified.

If you have no observable phenomena and you still have a hypothesis, then you are in the area of faith.

 

[Wangler]

Articulett,

Bravo, well said.

I can certainly understand your viewpoint.

I especially liked:

In the example above, the pilot has confidence from prior experiences-- not "faith".

This makes lots of sense!

I concede that you are probably right, I paint too broad of a stroke when I compare faith with scientific reasoning.

Perhaps this is due to an inner conflict between the religious upbringing of my youth and the engineering/scientific aspects of my adult life?

Thanks to all for writing so much when discussing your viewpoints; I hope to be able to articulate as well as many I have seen posting here, eventually.

What can I say, I am a happy newbie!

P.S.: Are there really only dozens of hard-core string theory advocates out there in the world?

 

[Wangler]

Here are some things that require faith:

1. Four space-time dimensions
2. Particles are small pieces of existence

I don't see any axes around that label dimensions and I certainly can't see any particles that are too small to see by definition.

1) What about all of those pesky positive test results regarding General Relativity? GR, a 4-D theory has been used to make many predictions, all of which have confirmed the theory.

What about similar tests and confirmatons against Sring Theory, which from what I have heard requires a high number of dimensions to "work out"?

2) When I look at small suspended pieces of debris in water under a microscope, they move randomly as if being hit from all sides by small pieces of existence.

Besides, we now have the pictures: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Scientists-Have-Filmed-For-The-First-Time-Ever-an-Electron-79369.shtml

 

[Wangler]

If you have no observable phenomena and you still have a hypothesis, then you are in the area of faith.

This is another good point.

 

[cyborg]

1) What about all of those pesky positive test results regarding General Relativity? GR, a 4-D theory has been used to make many predictions, all of which have confirmed the theory.

A 4D theory supporting a 4D world? Faith begats faith.

2) When I look at small suspended pieces of debris in water under a microscope, they move randomly as if being hit from all sides by small pieces of existence.

You have faith in your microscope based on the dogma of your optics.

 

[arthwollipot]

What about similar tests and confirmatons against Sring Theory, which from what I have heard requires a high number of dimensions to "work out"?

There are a number of possible tests that can be done for string theory, but all of them are indirect. Here's one:

String theory cannot work without 11 dimensions of spacetime, as you rightly point out. But there is another thing that string theory cannot work without - Supersymmetry (this is why string theory is properly called superstring theory). The details aren't important, but supersymmetry predicts that each kind of fundamental particle has a superpartner, which we have not detected yet because they are too massive for our current generation of particle accelerators.

The LHC comes on line this year. It may be able to produce superpartners that we can observe. This will not be direct evidence for superstring theory, but it will be strong circumstantial evidence that we are on the right track. There is no need for supersymmetry in the standard model. If superpartner particles are found, it will indicate that the universe respects supersymmetry, and there's no reason for it to do that unless something like string theory is correct.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here are some things that require faith:

1. Four space-time dimensions
2. Particles are small pieces of existence

I don't see any axes around that label dimensions and I certainly can't see any particles that are too small to see by definition.

Again you are mistaking evidence based conclusions, working hypotheses and current theories for "faith".

If you want to equate faith based beliefs with evidence based beliefs then you should be able to make the reverse statements:

Belief in gods is a working hypothesis.
Belief in gods is a theory.
Belief in gods is evidence based.

Can you really make the claim this is how theists view their god beliefs?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A 4D theory supporting a 4D world? Faith begats faith.

Observable evidence supports 4D theory.

You have faith in your microscope based on the dogma of your optics.

Repeatable consistent observations increase the reliability of conclusions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

Trust in theories includes theories that only allow approximate predictions. I you can consistently predict that around n% of a testgroup subjected to stimulus m will show behavior p, then you have a working model. It does not necessarily represent any kind of truth, but it is applicable to the area of application of your theory.

If you have observable phenomena in a significant amount and state that you can make predictions then you may have a hypothesis which may be verified or falsified.

If you have no observable phenomena and you still have a hypothesis, then you are in the area of faith.

This is a misunderstanding of what a theory and an hypothesis are.

Having faith in something implies that truth you spoke of. Acting on a conclusion drawn from the best evidence only says this is the conclusion one is acting on. There is always the chance it is not the right conclusion.

The only faith involved here if you want to make a semantic argument rather than a substantive one is that when one has repeatable consistent observations and when one uses evidence based conclusions that then result in successful outcomes, science has faith those things indicate reality. But I think the better way to look at it is the description SezMe gave, "The universe does NOT obey these rules, it demonstrates their applicability."

 

[cyborg]

Again you are mistaking evidence based conclusions, working hypotheses and current theories for "faith".

You do realise I was parodying right?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

If you have no observable phenomena and you still have a hypothesis, then you are in the area of faith.

No you are not. One generates an hypothesis as speculation, not as faith the hypothesis is correct. The definition of hypotheses is the antithesis of faith. An hypothesis is something you have no faith in. That is why you are defining it, so you can test it and see if your speculation can be supported by evidence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You do realise I was parodying right?

Sorry, my bad. I was on a roll here trying to correct imprecise definitions of what these words meant.

But I kind of liked what I wrote in post #128, didn't you?

 

[ArmillarySphere]

I think I'll have to invoke Poe's law on cyborg's post as well. After a while, nothing sounds too outrageous to be a sincerely held belief...

 

[JamesDillon]

I didn't see that there was a separate discussion thread on Phil's post when I replied to it. I'll paste my reply here, as it's probably more amenable to discussion here:

With due respect, Phil, I think you're kind of wrong on this one, for the very reason you point out: science does rely on an unprovable axiom, namely the premise of the uniformity of nature, which as Hume recognized cannot be proven logically or empirically. The fact that we appear to have made some pretty damned impressive predictions on the basis of the scientific method is not only irrelevant to the point but actually begs the question, since if Hume is right (and I've seen nothing--Popper included-- to suggest that he isn't) then we have no rationally defensible reason whatsoever to assume that any prediction based on the inductive process of scientific reasoning is valid regardless of the number of times such reasoning has worked in the past. I don't like that fact, and I'm certainly not here arguing in favor of faith-based epistemology, but I've never seen a solution to the problem of induction that resolves it. Much to my regret, after reading your post, I still haven't.

 

[articulett]

The fact that it has always worked in the past IS what allows us to assume that it will do so... just as we can presume that 2+2 will always equal 4. Unless you are claiming that math is faith based too?

 

[JamesDillon]

The fact that it has always worked in the past IS what allows us to assume that it will do so...

No, that's circular. You're attempting to justify a key premise of inductive reasoning- the process of reasoning from individual instances to generalities on the basis of observation-- by relying on inductive reasoning itself! All processes of inductive reasoning, including the scientific method, rely on the premise of the uniformity of nature, i.e., that like causes will generate like results over time (future futures will resemble past futures). You're attempting to justify that principle by pointing out that future futures always have resembled past futures. Well yeah, but so what? Without a non-circular basis justifying the inductive process to begin with, why should we care what the results of such a process would be-- or more to the point, why would we be rationally justified in believing that such a process can make meaningful and valid descriptive statements about the universe?

The uniformity of nature is an axiom of science that cannot be justified in a non-circular manner. Whether that makes science faith-based, or analogous to faith, I don't know, but Phil's post completely misses the point.

Mathematics is not an inductive process, so your example is entirely off-base.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The mistake you make, JD, is that the concept of overwhelming evidence allows us to operate on the basis of certain conclusions. The reason that differs from faith is that we are always able to change that conclusion should evidence become apparent the conclusion is wrong. So I don't need faith that a conclusion is correct. I merely need to act as if it is until it appears it isn't.

And that is the point of Phil's comments. The conclusions are there because the evidence supports them. The conclusions are testable. If they are not testable or not yet tested, then they are hypotheses or speculation. I don't have faith the Universe operates under a consistent set of rules, I have evidence it does.

 

[JamesDillon]

Skeptigirl, my point (or the point, which is hardly mine originally and is well recognized in philosophical circles) goes deeper than you apparently realize. Evidence is relevant to truth only to the extent that the process of inductive reasoning based on empirical observation is a logically rational way of acquiring knowledge or rationally-founded beliefs. Induction, as I point out above, relies on the premise of the uniformity of nature, but that premise is itself an assumption that cannot be proven in any non-circular manner. That's really the rub of the point. So Phil is wrong to say that science does not rely on unprovable axioms-- it does. Is there a way to distinguish that from "faith" in the pejorative sense which involves believing something simply because you really want it to be true? I wish I knew, but that's a problem that has stumped philosophers at least since Hume and I don't have any great personal expectations of resolving it definitively.

 

[sol invictus]

With due respect, Phil, I think you're kind of wrong on this one, for the very reason you point out: science does rely on an unprovable axiom, namely the premise of the uniformity of nature, which as Hume recognized cannot be proven logically or empirically.

Science does NOT rely on that, nor is that what Phil said - you're erecting a very rickety straw man. What he said was that science assumes only that the universe obeys a set of rules, and that those rules are deducible from observation - nothing at all about uniformity. If the universe acted differently every second, that would be a rule deducible using the scientific method. If the universe looks different over there than it does here (as it does) that is perfectly understandable with science.

The fact that we appear to have made some pretty damned impressive predictions on the basis of the scientific method is not only irrelevant to the point but actually begs the question, since if Hume is right (and I've seen nothing--Popper included-- to suggest that he isn't) then we have no rationally defensible reason whatsoever to assume that any prediction based on the inductive process of scientific reasoning is valid regardless of the number of times such reasoning has worked in the past.

Utter nonsense. What more rationally defensible reason could you possibly ask for beyond impressive success after impressive success? After you've built a computer and replied to this post using only logic and the Piano axioms (or whatever your particular flavor may be) I'll pay attention to you.