Article: Is Science Faith Based

cavedave

adamd164
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.

Every working physicists i know expects quantum mechanics to be surpased by a more accurate theory at some point. They could be wrong of course. But if I am willing to bet that the large hadron collider will make observations that do not match with the standard model.

*while i am on the subject the pioneer phenomenon and various other observations suggest something other then relativity is needed to explain gravity.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

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.

That is because they are lying.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

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

If you think that is the objection to YEC you haven't been following the discussion very closely. People, such as myself, aren't calling the Young Earth Creationist liars because they are simply interpreting the evidence in a different fashion. I call them liars because they are lying about things, such as what the theory of evolution states.

If Creationists says "We believe the Bible is literal, that there was a global flood and that we think these rocks are evidence for that" that is unsupported nonsense, but it isn't a lie.

If on the other hand they say "Evolution is impossible because it says that random change produced all the diversity of life on Earth" that is a lie. If they say "Evolution is unsupported because there are no transitional fossils ever discovered", that is also a lie. If they say that "Mutation can never produce new information" that is a lie, and if they say "Mutation always results in the death of the organism" that is also a lie

BrianCalgary wrote: »

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

I certainly have, because they spend a load of time lying.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

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

I do not ever recall stating that evolution has been proven, and I recall a number of times when I explained neither it, or nothing in science, has ever been proven.

If I did I was wrong (and possibly drunk). Would you have the quote where I said that?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

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

Accuracy, as I have explained a number of times before.

Science is interested in producing theories (models) that model and predict the way the universe works around us as accurately as possible.

This is why science is constantly changing it's theories (something science is bizarrely criticized for from religious circles), because a theory can always be more accurate, a model can always represent a natural phenomena in better detail, better match observation and make better predictions.

For example, Newtonian physics was accurate up to a point. It was then improved with General Relativity, which more accurately modeled the forces of nature. Relativity wasn't accurate for the sub-atomic, so Quantum Mechanics is used, which is much more accurate. Scientists dream of producing a theory that accurately models both the big and the small in one theory, but so far they haven't developed one yet, so all physics theories are inaccurate to a point.

Equally Darwinian evolution when developed by Darwin was a good theory but inaccurate over a lot of things, which isn't surprising because Darwin knew very little about genetics. Over the years it has changed into Neo-Darwinian theory as scientists have altered the theory to better match observation and prediction.

So it isn't really a question of being right or wrong, being true or false. It is a question of being accurate or not accurate.

Obviously something completely inaccurate can be considered "false", but since it is impossible to tell if you are ever modeling something to complete accuracy you can't ever say that a model is "true". But that doesn't make a model worthless. You can do a lot of with theory that is still inaccurate, such as Newtonian physics, it just depends on how accurate you need your model to be.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

My computer exists because scientists discovered the truth around us and made it so it works.

No, your computer exists because scientists have accurately modeled forces like electricity to the point where they understand enough of what is happening to reproduce the effects in a useful fashion.

They can always learn more, make their models more accurate, but they have theories that do enough to do useful things, like produce a computer, at the moment.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

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?

No one is (or should be) asking you to accept that.

What annoys people like myself is when people say "Oh well science isn't perfect, therefore you have to accept my supernatural all powerful goat that rules the universe theory as just as valid"

Because you cannot be 100% sure of a theory doesn't mean you can't look at how accurate a theory has been at either matching observation or predicting outcomes. An accurate theory has more value than an inaccurate theory.

adamd164

@ cavedave - The conceptual framework of quantum mechanics will probably be incorporated into a more grandoise theorem, sure, but the point stands that the actual observations it makes and its predictions are exceedingly accurate.

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote: »

Ok, proof/evidence same thing for me

Well, it shouldn't be.

joe_chicken wrote: »

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

It would only be self fulfilling if I first defined faith in terms of science, which I'm not doing.

joe_chicken wrote: »

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

If someone completely trust science they don't understand science.

As Dades says science is self correcting. It needs to be self correcting because it is constantly wrong about things, in fact it wouldn't work if it wasn't.

The only thing I have 100% faith in with relation to science is that most scientific theories will be inaccurate and flawed, and the ones that aren't we will never know aren't.

Now if you want to argue that people can and do misunderstand what science is and what it attempts to do, I would agree with you on that and in fact point you to some posters on this very thread for evidence. But science is not bound to be what misinformed people think it is.

CerebralCortex

joe_chicken wrote: »

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

Well science has a more accurate definition

5uspect

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?

We can only expect them to be better informed with more evidence and hence more accurate.

joe_chicken wrote: »

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

I can accept that a lay person can have trust in what science says without requiring to read papers or perform experiments of their own. The difference with religion is that its blind faith from the top down. Even the most holy of holy men require nothing but faith. The LHC is not a cathedral to science, my wind tunnel is not a shrine. In my own work I see measurements and simulations performed by other researchers and I see the same patterns in my own. If I publish results that have not been seen before (and I will!!!:cool:) I expect others to replicate them, in fact I would demand it.

cavedave wrote: »

Every working physicists i know expects quantum mechanics to be surpased by a more accurate theory at some point. They could be wrong of course. But if I am willing to bet that the large hadron collider will make observations that do not match with the standard model.

*while i am on the subject the pioneer phenomenon and various other observations suggest something other then relativity is needed to explain gravity.

Have you read the recent New Scientist article on deterministic QM?

5uspect

Wicknight wrote:

joe_chicken wrote:

Ok, proof/evidence same thing for me

Well, it shouldn't be.

Evidence is the destroyer of proof.

Dades

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?

If another method of observation even existed I might be able to answer that question!

DublinWriter

Definition of faith as noun from the OED 2nd Ed:

Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine). Const. in, †of. In early use, only with reference to religious objects; this is still the prevalent application, and often colours the wider use.

I think the phrase "often colours the wider use" sums up this discussion. The use of the word faith in the context of scientific belief is arguably inexpedient.

Fremen

Hi everyone,
I'm new to this forum, so I do aplolgise if you've been over what I'm about to say. Reading through the previous posts, you all seem to throw the words "faith" and "evidence" around quite a lot, without reaching a consensus on how those words should be understood.

However, I think a major point that's being missed here, even in the article in the OP, is that science really has very little to do with evidence or faith. It's about making falsifiable predictions. A rigorous scientific theory should outline exactly the predictions it makes, and how they can be falsified. This is the fundemental characteristic that seperates it from religion.

Zillah

death1234567 wrote: »

If ever I need proof that you're an idiot I can just link to this thread.:p

This.

Zillah

Fremen wrote: »

science really has very little to do with evidence or faith. It's about making falsifiable predictions. A rigorous scientific theory should outline exactly the predictions it makes, and how they can be falsified.

...with evidence, no?

Dades

Welcome, Fremen.

Fremen wrote: »

Hi everyone,
I'm new to this forum, so I do aplolgise if you've been over what I'm about to say. Reading through the previous posts, you all seem to throw the words "faith" and "evidence" around quite a lot, without reaching a consensus on how those words should be understood.

It's only people with an actual faith, that even use that word in conjunction with science, in an attempt to equate the two.

Fremen

...with evidence, no?

What you're thinking of as evidence could also be thought of as "lack of falsification up until now". If I make a statement like "All swans are white", and show you a million white swans, I'm giving evidence which strengthens my position. However, "All swans are white" is only a scientific statement because you can totally refute it by showing me a black swan.

If I read my horoscope in the morning, and it tells me "A dark stranger will cross your path", and a dark stranger does in fact cross my path, that gives evidence that astrology works. The problem here is that "A tall dark stranger will cross your path" is such a vague statement that it can be taken any number of ways, and it would be difficult or impossible to refute such a statement.

In both cases, we have "evidence", but evidence is essentially meaningless unless the theory specifies some way in which it can be proven wrong.

Zombrex

Fremen wrote: »

In both cases, we have "evidence", but evidence is essentially meaningless unless the theory specifies some way in which it can be proven wrong.

That is a good point (falsifiability has been mentioned before)

This is the reason why science doesn't touch a concept like "God" with a barge poll, much to the annoyance of many religious people.

"God did it" is a completely untestable theory. Since, given the current theist definition, you cannot demonstrate "God didn't do" such a statement has no place in science.

It is also the problem with Intelligent Design. How do you falsify the assertion that a unknown intelligence with unknown power did something unknown to alter biological life on Earth.

Fremen

Wicknight wrote: »

"God did it" is a completely untestable theory. Since, given the current theist definition, you cannot demonstrate "God didn't do" such a statement has no place in science.

It is also the problem with Intelligent Design. How do you falsify the assertion that a unknown intelligence with unknown power did something unknown to alter biological life on Earth.

Exunctly!

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

It is also the problem with Intelligent Design. How do you falsify the assertion that a unknown intelligence with unknown power did something unknown to alter biological life on Earth.

And th eproblem with this statement is that God has made Himself known (the Bible and coming to Earth) His power is known and has been shown throughout history.

You just choose to ignore the evidence and push it aside as being nonsense, as the YEC folk do with the evidence that you hold sacred.

BrianCalgary

adamd164 wrote: »

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".

You are wrong and have tried to read a lot inot my thinking without showing any proof that I would do such a thing.

I know and undertstand how science works. Tarzan made numerous observations and everything he saw about the wind led him to believe that the wind was caused by the movement of leaves.

He had a theory, it was tested and observed and came out to happen 100% of the time.

Yet he was wrong.

Tainted meat put out 100% of the time ended up with maggots.
Conclusion of the hypothesis that tainted meat turned into maggots was tested and observed to happen 100% of the time. Conclusion was that tainted meat turned into maggots.

Yet it was wrong.

Why did both theories turn our to be wrong? New evidence was introduced.

Yet people back in that time put their faith in and trusted those methods of scientific discovery.

Back in the 1960's the greatest drug in the world had been tried, and tested and found to be able to kill of morning sickness in pregnant women. Preganant women all over Canada put their trust and faith in the science that came to this remarkable discovery. Mush to their chagrin it came out that the drug caused the foetus to become incomplete and children were born without limbs.

That is faith.

Sangre

Lies, damn lies and semantics.

This whole discussion boils down to how you view the definition of faith:

1. belief that is not based on proof
2. confidence or trust in a person or thing

Regarding the 'science debate',the former is false, the latter is not. Most people have confidence/trust in science and its discoveries, enough that they will use the technologies it has discovered. However they will not have 100% trust as they know it can be wrong and they will stop using something if they discover it to be wrong.

The problem arises because atheists describe religion as the first one and theists may describe science as the latter. Atheists get miffed because they assume religious people are using 'faith' in the same context that they are.

stevejazzx

dear lord Calgary don't you get it?

Noone is saying science is perfect, everyone is simply saying that it is the best way we currently have of understanding reality becasue we can observe that the physical world obeys certain rules, like the op explained and we can find patterns of behaviour and relate them directly to one another and even make predictions of how they will behave under certain conditions...that is reality as best we know it...now we can theroize about some kind of 'truth' something transcendant and godly but that is the opposite of science, that is speculation based on based on nothing more than feelings and probably a sense of fear...

Zillah

Fremen wrote: »

However, "All swans are white" is only a scientific statement because you can totally refute it by showing me a black swan.

The black swan being evidence that your assertion is wrong.

Zillah

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I know and undertstand how science works.

Its laughably clear that you don't. As demonstrated by the apalling post you just made. There's so much stuff that could be so easily attacked but I'll just cut right to the matter at hand because I'm a little tired.

Back in the 1960's the greatest drug in the world had been tried, and tested and found to be able to kill of morning sickness in pregnant women. Preganant women all over Canada put their trust and faith in the science that came to this remarkable discovery. Mush to their chagrin it came out that the drug caused the foetus to become incomplete and children were born without limbs.

That is faith.

There's two points here. One is that the above demonstrates faith, the second is that this has anything whatsoever to do with science. I'll concede the first point just for the sake of argument. However, what the average person believes about science has absolutely nothing to do with how science operates. A person can have faith in anything. How idiots like that feel about something does not reflect anything about the thing itself.

But hey, maybe it'd be best if we all assumed the limbless children were a curse from God. Then again, using a disciplined, evidence based approach has shown itself to be far more likely of getting things right rather than just making shit up.

5uspect

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Back in the 1960's the greatest drug in the world had been tried, and tested and found to be able to kill of morning sickness in pregnant women. Preganant women all over Canada put their trust and faith in the science that came to this remarkable discovery. Mush to their chagrin it came out that the drug caused the foetus to become incomplete and children were born without limbs.

Now I can't imagine how preventing morning sickness can elevate a drug to the greatest drug in the world. Curing AIDS maybe, or preventing cancer...

Anyway, did the drug actually prevent morning sickness? Leaving the emotional impact of your story aside (An abortion will also cure morning sickness) the drug probably did what it claimed. The problem was not with the scientific method but more likely with over eager rush to market.

Sangre

Bob: Hey john, come over here. I think I just cured canc...

John: HOLY **** I JUST CURED MORNING SICKNESS!!!

Bob: *drops testtubes* THIS I GOTTA SEE!

lostexpectation

is the existance of god the only thing the not falsifiable

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I know and undertstand how science works.

Brian -- it's difficult not to appear rude here, but your posts on this thread really do suggest that you neither know nor understand what "science" is, nor how it "works".

I think you'd benefit from reading some of the posts in this thread again, especially this one of Wicknight, from "Accuracy, as I have explained..." onwards.

If you approach the topic with an open and inquiring mind, you should be able to understand where you're going wrong. It's not difficult, and I'm sure posters here will be happy to help you.

c0rk3r

Is science faith based? No.
Do people put their faith into science? yes.

Just an aside note for people interested. The case Brian was talking about is Thalidomide. Its a racemic mixture containing both (r) and (s) isomers (Your left and right hands are examples of isomers) in equal amounts. The S isomer of thalidomide is a sedative and has teratogenic side effects. The r-isomer is also a sedative but has no tertogenic side effects. If anything this showed how stereochemistry has a major role in activity. Its pretty amazing when you think about it. The same molecule but each just rotate the plane polarised light in equal but opposite directions and each can interact differently with other chiral molecules. Not enough controls were in place to catch its side effects. Today imb/fda you cant even go to the toliet without following rigorous and stringent procedures making sure everything is done correctly and within regulation standards.

Heres another example. S-ketamine is an anaesthetic. R-ketamine has little anaesthetic action but is a psychotic (this is the one people use to go into a k-hole, recreational use). Imagine taking the wrong one and just being anaesthatised. You'd look an awful fool.

Sapien

c0rk3r wrote: »

Is science faith based? No.
Do people put their faith into science? yes.

Just an aside note for people interested. The case Brian was talking about is Thalidomide. Its a racemic mixture containing both (r) and (s) isomers (Your left and right hands are examples of isomers) in equal amounts. The S isomer of thalidomide is a sedative and has teratogenic side effects. The r-isomer is also a sedative but has no tertogenic side effects. If anything this showed how stereochemistry has a major role in activity. Its pretty amazing when you think about it. The same molecule but each just rotate the plane polarised light in equal but opposite directions and each can interact differently with other chiral molecules.

Not to derail - but I was pretty certain that the differing agencies of the isomers was understood, and that the tertogenic s-isomer was isolated before commercialisation. The problem was that a certain proportion of the r-isomers switched chirality over time in equilibrium. Or perhaps that was a second iteration of the control process. Either way - a fortiori.

Zillah

robindch wrote: »

If you approach the topic with an open and inquiring mind, you should be able to understand where you're going wrong. It's not difficult, and I'm sure posters here will be happy to help you.

Your approach is probably more likely to be successful Mine is more fun though.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And th eproblem with this statement is that God has made Himself known (the Bible and coming to Earth) His power is known and has been shown throughout history.

Which is impossible to test because God making Himself known looks exactly the same as God not making Himself known, by your own definition of God. The Bible would look the same if it was written by God or written by a bunch of deluded religious followers (the same is true for every religious book). As such you can't test if the Bible was written by God or a bunch of deluded religious followers.

Theist, including yourself if I remember, have been challenged before to come up with a way that a person can actually test the "God theory" (ie produce a model which contains God, a model that can be tested against prediction and observation), and not surpassingly no response was quickly coming.

In fact most religions rely on the untestability of God in the first place (and have gone to great lengths to move God literally out of the universe to keep him untestable), after all no religion wants science to demonstrate a central pillar of their religion isn't a result of God.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You just choose to ignore the evidence and push it aside as being nonsense, as the YEC folk do with the evidence that you hold sacred.

Again BC come up with a way to test the "God theory" and I will happily to do it.

Theists have defined God as untestable, it is then a bit rich to turn around and complain that science is ignoring their god.

Science is ignoring your god because your religion has defined your god in such a way that he can never be tested by science in the first place. Therefore science ignores him.