Article: Is Science Faith Based

Zombrex

I never tire of debating the rather silly theist/Creationist/spiritualist argument that science is itself faith based so there is little difference between their supernatural explanations and beliefs and the beliefs science puts forward, but this article explains why that is rather flawed better than any way I could

Is science faith based?
by Phil Plait

No.

Oh, you want details? OK then.

If you read any antiscience screeds, at some point or another most will claim that science is based on faith just as much as religion is. For example, the horrific Answers in Genesis website has this to say about science:

Much of the problem stems from the different starting points of our divergence with Darwinists. Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths. This starting point, whatever it is, can only be accepted by faith; eventually, in each belief system, there must be some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning (since an infinite regression is impossible).

This is completely wrong. It shows (unsurprisingly) an utter misunderstanding of how science works. Science is not faith-based, and here’s why.

The scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules. That’s it. There is one corollary, and that is that if the Universe follows these rules, then those rules can be deduced by observing the way Universe behaves. This follows naturally; if it obeys the rules, then the rules must be revealed by that behavior.

A simple example: we see objects going around the Sun. The motion appears to follow some rules: the orbits are conic sections (ellipses, circles, parabolas, hyperbolas), the objects move faster when they are closer to the Sun, if they move too quickly they can escape forever, and so on.

From these observations we can apply mathematical equations to describe those motions, and then use that math to predict where a given object will be at some future date. Guess what? It works. It works so well that we can shoot probes at objects billions of kilometers away and still nail the target to phenomenal accuracy. This supports our conclusion that the math is correct. This in turn strongly implies that the Universe is following its own rules, and that we can figure them out.

Now, of course that is a very simple example, and is not meant to be complete, but it gives you an idea of how this works. Now think on this: the computer you are reading this on is entirely due to science. The circuits are the end result of decades, centuries of exploration in how electricity works and how quantum particles behave. The monitor is a triumph of scientific engineering, whether it’s a CRT or an LCD flat panel. The mouse might use an LED, or a simple ball-and-wheel. The keyboard uses springs, the wireless uses radio technology, the speakers use electromagnetism.*

Look around. Cars, airplanes, buildings. iPods, books, clothing. Agriculture, plumbing, waste disposal. Light bulbs, vacuum cleaners, ovens. These are all the products of scientific research. If your TV breaks, you can pray that it’ll spontaneously start working again, but my money would be on someone who has learned how to actually fix it based on scientific and engineering principles.

All the knowledge we have accumulated over the millennia comes together in a harmonious symphony of science. We’re not guessing here: this stuff was designed using previous knowledge developed in a scientific manner over centuries. And it works. All of this goes to support our underlying assumption that the Universe obeys rules that we can deduce.

Are there holes in this knowledge? Of course. Science doesn’t have all the answers. But science has a tool, a power that its detractors never seem to understand.

Science is not simply a database of knowledge. It’s a method, a way of finding this knowledge. Observe, hypothesize, predict, observe, revise. Science is provisional; it’s always open to improvement. Science is even subject to itself. If the method itself didn’t work, we’d see it. Our computers wouldn’t work (OK, bad example), our space probes wouldn’t get off the ground, our electronics wouldn’t work, our medicine wouldn’t work. Yet, all these things do in fact function, spectacularly well. Science is a check on itself, which is why it is such an astonishingly powerful way of understanding reality.

And that right there is where science and religion part ways. Science is not based on faith. Science is based on evidence. We have evidence it works, vast amounts of it, billions of individual pieces that fit together into a tapestry of reality. That is the critical difference. Faith, as it is interpreted by most religions, is not evidence-based, and is generally held tightly even despite evidence against it. In many cases, faith is even reinforced when evidence is found contrary to it.

To say that we have to take science on faith is such a gross misunderstanding of how science works that it can only be uttered by someone who is wholly ignorant of how reality works.

The next time someone tries to tell you that science is just as faith-based as religion, or that evolution is a religion, point them here. Perhaps the evidence of science may sway them. Perhaps not; it’s difficult to reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. But the next time they get on a computer, maybe they’ll take a slightly more critical look at it, and wonder if its workings are a miracle, or the results of brilliant minds over many generations toiling away at the scientific method.

*The irony of Answers in Genesis denigrating science on a website is not lost on me.

Taken from http://www.badastronomy.com/

As the article says the only "axiom of faith" that science uses is the idea that the universe works based on a set of rules and that these rules can be deuced from observing the universe.

That is ironically the main axiom that theists disagree with (without probably realizing), since the existence of God, an entity that follows no set rules or predictable behavior means that the universe is ultimately not bound by any predictable rules or behavior.

joe_chicken

Wicknight wrote: »

As the article says the only "axiom of faith" that science uses is the idea that the universe works based on a set of rules and that these rules can be deuced from observing the universe.

I must be missing something huge from this article, I've read it a couple times now, but I still can't stop thinking:

Faith based on "a set of rules deduced from observations" is still faith.

Science is not simply a database of knowledge. It’s a method

A method that relies on faith in predetermined assumptions.

Missed this the first time:

To say that we have to take science on faith is such a gross misunderstanding of how science works that it can only be uttered by someone who is wholly ignorant of how reality works.

What a crock of shìt.

Sapien

joe_chicken wrote: »

To say that we have to take science on faith is such a gross misunderstanding of how science works that it can only be uttered by someone who is wholly ignorant of how reality works.

What a crock of shìt.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote: »

I must be missing something huge from this article, I've read it a couple times now, but I still can't stop thinking:

Faith based on "a set of rules deduced from observations" is still faith.

Not under any definition of the word "faith" that I'm aware of.

Zombrex

Sapien wrote: »

Quod erat demonstrandum.

You left out the "motherf**ker"

joe_chicken

Sapien wrote: »

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Exactly. I'm quite secure in the fact that I don't know how reality works.

The part that I have a problem with is the suggestion that anyone else does.

Wicknight wrote:

Not under any definition of the word "faith" that I'm aware of.

Ok, these 2 definitions from here

(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof - your definition
(2): complete trust - my definition

As far as (1) is concerned, your definition seems to be quite self fulfilling (never used that expression before, hope I'm using it right)

Science gives "proof".
Faith doesn't exist without "proof".
Science doesn't use faith.

But I think faith is more like (2), we put our complete trust in science.

You only need to read the article to see that.
Q.E.D.

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote: »

Science gives "proof".
Faith doesn't exist without "proof".
Science doesn't use faith.

I really hope that isn't supposed to be paraphrasing me, because if I have to explain, yet again, on this forum that science does not give or even attempt to give, proof of anything I think I am going to go POSTAL!!

Faith, as I would use the term in relation to religion, is belief in something without either understanding or evidence. Many in the Christian forum state that they have faith that doctrine X of their religion is correct even if they don't understand it or have no evidence in support of it.

robindch

joe_chicken wrote: »

I'm quite secure in the fact that I don't know how reality works.

Evidently.

Be aware that science is not a description of the world, it's a description of how to understand the world; a meta-description, if you like.

The kind of belief that one has that a certain piece is information is accurate is quite different from the kind of belief that one has concerning the accuracy of a process which gave rise to the same piece of information.

You can certainly try to conflate the two -- or claim that the two are identical -- but the only person who's going to end up getting confused it yourself.

joe_chicken

Wicknight wrote: »

I really hope that isn't supposed to be paraphrasing me, because if I have to explain, yet again, on this forum that science does not give or even attempt to give, proof of anything I think I am going to go POSTAL!!

In fact I was doing quite the opposite, you could replace "proof" in my definition with anything and you would still come to the same conclusion:

And maybe change the above a little, I wrote it a little quickly:

Science uses jellybeans.
Faith doesn't exist with jellybeans.
Science doesn't use faith.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

You can certainly try to conflate the two -- or claim that the two are identical -- but the only person who's going to end up getting confused it yourself.

joe_chicken wrote: »

Science uses jellybeans.
Faith doesn't exist with jellybeans.
Science doesn't use faith.

Q.E.D.

joe_chicken

robindch wrote: »

Evidently.

If ever I need proof of atheistic smugness I can just link to this thread.

Dades

joe_chicken wrote: »

If ever I need proof of atheistic smugness I can just link to this thread.

Oh come on, there are much better threads than this one for that.

mathias

I can see how the " Science is faith" thing is widely accepted , and easily see it as well ,

I'll start with this quote ,

And that right there is where science and religion part ways. Science is not based on faith. Science is based on evidence. We have evidence it works, vast amounts of it, billions of individual pieces that fit together into a tapestry of reality. That is the critical difference.

Yes indeed there is vast amounts of evidence , but who are we trying to convince here , the ordinary Joe , with no scientific background !
The person who , when shown the evidence , has neither the background or training to determine if its true or not !

The reason that the Science is faith argument gets so widely accepted is simple , for the vast majority of people it really is a matter of faith , because with no resources , background or training , they simply have to take the results at face value ... its that simple , and you may as well talk to them about pixies leprechauns , and angels as about electrons quarks and black holes.

For the vast majority of people , its all about accepting one book or the other , and each can be as outlandish as the other without the necessary specialised education .....

To the uninitiated , Quantum mechanics can sound just as outrageous as any Diety !

And that ultimately is where this " science is faith " argument comes from , for the really big questions , to actually " know" the truth , for instance to actually know that Evolution is the truth , you have to have a specialised education , in something like microbiology , with a deep understanding of DNA , access to sequencers and so on , once you have that its not a matter of faith anymore , you know it , without the background , no matter how convinced you are , you dont know it , you just accept it as true , and that is " Faith ".

joe_chicken

robindch wrote: »

Be aware that science is not a description of the world, it's a description of how to understand the world; a meta-description, if you like.

Ok, so how does this "meta description" differ from an actual description in the real world?

To 99.9999% of people in 99.9999% of situations, they are going to treat it as the same thing.

And that's what matters, how people use it.

robindch wrote: »

The kind of belief that one has that a certain piece is information is accurate is quite different from the kind of belief that one has concerning the accuracy of a process which gave rise to the same piece of information.

Not sure what you're driving at here.

(1) "a certain piece is information is accurate"

(2) "the accuracy of a process which gave rise to the same piece of information"

The second one relies on the first. Every process for attaining information starts with an assumption.

robindch wrote: »

You can certainly try to conflate the two -- or claim that the two are identical -- but the only person who's going to end up getting confused it yourself.

So what you're saying is that I shouldn't think about it too much and take things on... faith?

My mantra is:
"If you're not confused, you're not thinking hard enough"

joe_chicken

Dades wrote: »

Q.E.D.

Not sure what you're getting at.

If you think I'm confused with my jellybeans example, I can explain it to you?

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote: »

Science uses jellybeans.
Faith doesn't exist with jellybeans.
Science doesn't use faith.

"Evidence" would be the word I would use

Science uses evidence.
Faith doesn't use evidence.
Science does not use faith.

Or as I would put it, science is both based on evidence and acknowledges its own limitations to be accurate. Faith isn't and doesn't. Therefore science is not based on faith.

If science was based on faith it wouldn't be science.

BrianCalgary

I am currently reading an Edgar Rice Burroughs Tarzan book. In it Tarzan observes all that is around him and scientifiacally deduces the source for wind.

Whenever there is wind, leaves and trees and grass's move, therefore when the foliage communicates with one another (they communicate by moving) they create the wind.

Tarzan deduces all that he can see and measure and comes to the conclusion that wind is caused by the movement of teh foliage in the jungle where he lives.

In order to go on about science providing all truth you have to have FAITH that science has ALL the information.

Tarzan did not have all the information to know and understand teh source for teh wind, but he could make a very good argument as to its source, based on teh observations that he had avialable.

The same with the belief that tainted meat turned into maggots, science made these observations and came to that conslusion, but they didn't have all the information, people had faith in and trusted that the conclusion of tainted meat turning into maggots was true because they had faith that the scientififc observers had all teh information and had interpretated the observations correctly.

Science does require faith, faith in that the scientists have considered all possibilities and have all the information and have interpretated the data properly.

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote: »

Ok, so how does this "meta description" differ from an actual description in the real world?

To 99.9999% of people in 99.9999% of situations, they are going to treat it as the same thing.

And that's what matters, how people use it.

I don't think you are following what a meta-description is.

"Blue is a colour" is a meta-description

"The sky is blue" is a description.

The first is a method of describing something (using colours), the second is the actual description of something using the above method.

You can be 100% sure that blue is a colour. You can't be 100% sure that the sky is blue.

We can be sure about meta-description because it is a human invention.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

In order to go on about science providing all truth you have to have FAITH that science has ALL the information.

Oh sweet holy allah!

SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVIDE, NOR ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE, TRUTH

It doesn't do this for exactly the reason you say, the only way to know something is true is to have all possible information, which is impossible.

Science knows this, it is part of scientific philosophy. It is a key difference between science and religion.

There is no faith in science.

Dades

death1234567 - you'd be banned in some forums for that.
Consider yourself warned.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVIDE, NOR ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE, TRUTH

.

Interesting you should say that because over on another thread there a few science believers who want shut up a certain group of people who have interpreted the evidence to show a young earth, because the YC'ers are lying.

Lying meaning telling an untruth. That science has discovered the truth.

And you yourself have spent a load of time calling other posters over on the creationist thread, liers.

You also claim over on the creationist that evolution has been proven, therefore it is true and all else is false.

If science isnt interested in truth, then what is it inetrested in?

My computer exists because scientists discovered the truth around us and made it so it works. If they weren't interested in discovering the truth behind the physical properties then this machine doesn't exist.

joe_chicken

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think you are following what a meta-description is.

I didn't know that, thank you.

robindch wrote:

Be aware that science is not a description of the world, it's a description of how to understand the world; a meta-description, if you like.

But this description was what I was referring to... Is this not different?

cavedave

The scientific method changes over time. If there was only one way of doing science then it would not change. In the future we are likely to use very different types of measurement instruments, different types of knowledge stores and different types of experimental design (for example nowdays drug companies have to announce they are going to run an experiment to prevent them cherry picking the results form the experiments that suit them)

How fundamental are these changes to how science is done to the whole edifice of science?

1600 - Laboratory 1609 - Telescopes and microscopes 1650 - Society of experts 1665 - Repeatability (Robert Boyle) 1665 - Scholarly journals 1675 - Peer review 1687 - Hypothesis/prediction (Isaac Newton) 1920 - Falsifiability (Karl Popper) 1926 - Randomized design (Ronald Fisher) 1937 - Controlled placebo 1946 - Computer simulation 1950 - Double blind experiment 1962 - Study of scientific method (Thomas Kuhn)

Dades

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The same with the belief that tainted meat turned into maggots, science made these observations and came to that conslusion...

...but science didn't close the book on that conclusion. Another scientist came along and said, "no, look, tiny flies eggs grow into maggots". And then people said "yes, were wrong to believe rotten meat turns into maggots - lucky for us the scientific process is self-correcting". And so the cycle continues.

BrianCalgary

cavedave wrote: »

The scientific method changes over time. If there was only one way of doing science then it would not change. In the future we are likely to use very different types of measurement instruments, different types of knowledge stores and different types of experimental design (for example nowdays drug companies have to announce they are going to run an experiment to prevent them cherry picking the results form the experiments that suit them)

How fundamental are these changes to how science is done to the whole edifice of science?

1600 - Laboratory 1609 - Telescopes and microscopes 1650 - Society of experts 1665 - Repeatability (Robert Boyle) 1665 - Scholarly journals 1675 - Peer review 1687 - Hypothesis/prediction (Isaac Newton) 1920 - Falsifiability (Karl Popper) 1926 - Randomized design (Ronald Fisher) 1937 - Controlled placebo 1946 - Computer simulation 1950 - Double blind experiment 1962 - Study of scientific method (Thomas Kuhn)

Absolutely, and all through time people trusted and had faith in these methods.

What new and interesting stuff will be discovered as tools used change? What new discoveries will occur that could contradict today's scientific truths?

adamd164

I was watching a few clips from Rod Liddle's "The Trouble With Atheism" documentary, and I cringed when he made what he thought was the knockdown point -- that atheists who believe science to be the only answer are just as faith-orientated as the diehard religious.

Not true at all -- show me someone in sane mind who denies the power of science. Who denies that science can answer many questions about the physical Universe. We all utilize the products of scientific endeavour in our everyday lives.

What the religious do is say "yes, sure, we agree - science can provide answers. But we're going to postulate more than that. We believe that there are things which we cannout observe. Why? Just because." The scientific atheist merely takes what everyone else agrees to be the observable reality of the world in which we live and says that he/she has absolutely no reason to believe that anything else exists, because we haven't the slightest hint of it doing so. I don't, after all, claim to know that it doesn't exist, as the religious claim to know that it does.

BrianCalgary

Dades wrote: »

...but science didn't close the book on that conclusion. Another scientist came along and said, "no, look, tiny flies eggs grow into maggots". And then people said "yes, were wrong to believe rotten meat turns into maggots - lucky for us the scientific process is self-correcting". And so the cycle continues.

Absolutely it does. But because past methods were flawed and the conclusions turned out to be untrue, how can we now trust in the current scientific method of observation as being 100% correct without any flaws?

cavedave

BrianCalgary

What new and interesting stuff will be discovered as tools used change? What new discoveries will occur that could contradict today's scientific truths?

Hopefully lots of new stuff will be discovered. I do not know of any "scientific truths". As far as in know there are only theories that
1. Have been disproved
2. Have not been disproved yet
At least that is how I remember my Popper. I believe this view of scientific theories is the generally currently held one and has only been accepted since Popper. But i am open to correction.

adamd164

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Absolutely, and all through time people trusted and had faith in these methods.

What new and interesting stuff will be discovered as tools used change? What new discoveries will occur that could contradict today's scientific truths?

Brian, correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that you're the type who would blurt out in a debate that science once believed the earth to be flat. It did not. I dislike even comparing the science of today with the philosophical gentleman's hobby that was its distant ancestor. There was simply no such thing as "proof" in the empirical sense as we know it. It was an exercise in conjecture -- "well, the earth seems to be flat; ergo, it's flat". That does not cut the mustard in today's world. Yes - science is all the time advancing, yes - it's true to say that we may never know everything about the Universe.

But don't make me laugh by suggesting that it somehow demeans the system that's in place. It's not just that evidence support certain theories, but those theories can make extraordinarily accurate predictions; e.g. Quantum mechanics -- Feynmann stated that it is equivalent in accuracy to measuring the width of North America to within a human hair. It is a fact insofar as we can call anything a fact. Will it ever be disposed of as accurate science? Oh possibly, but not likely.

When have theologians ever had to submit themselves to peer review and universally-accepted methods of ascertaining the correctness or falseness of a hypothesis? Never, they just spew out nonsense and no one challenges them on the basis that it's centred around "faith".

CerebralCortex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Absolutely it does. But because past methods were flawed and the conclusions turned out to be untrue, how can we now trust in the current scientific method of observation as being 100% correct without any flaws?

Well what else is there to trust in? Jesus isn't an answer.

joe_chicken

Wicknight wrote: »

"Evidence" would be the word I would use

Science uses evidence.
Faith doesn't use evidence.
Science does not use faith.

Ok, proof/evidence same thing for me

But I was just showing how self fulfilling your definition was, and still is.

From the way I see faith and science:

Faith involves complete trust in something.
People trust science completely (whether they're meant to or not)
People have faith in science.

That's my definition, and I'm sticking to it