Science is not immune from requiring faith...

Wings...

I understand what you are saying. However, the word "faith" carries so much baggage with it. To most Americans, it has a strong religious connotation. I think that is why scientists avoid the term. They are much more likely to use a synonym such as "trust" to express what they feel, as in "trust the observation" or "trust their senses."

And scientists and fundamentalist have such a different outlook on the world that it is almost impossible to bridge the gap. Scientists search for their own answers, while fundamentalists rely on authority to give them their answers.

This site gave me some good insight into the difficulties involved in communicating between such different world views...

http://members.aol.com/intwg/antiprocess.htm

As far as science education goes, I think it helps a lot to have a passionate science teacher at a young age. If all you see is that your teacher is bored by it, then I think that will strongly influence your future views.
 
Tom2 said:
A simple model for the acquisition of scientific knowledge would be the following. You make a series of observations, and notice that they all have something in common. You formulate a theory (let's call it P) based on that commonality. Then you derive a prediction Q from P and see if it stands up to the test.

Now let's say that the prediction Q pans out. Then your allegation that this is all a matter of faith would be represented logically by the following logical schema:

P-->Q
Q
Therefore, P is true.

But scientists aren't so simple as to think that the above syllogism is valid. It is well-known that it is inductive and doesn't prove anything. Rather scientists take the following point of view towards confirmations of a theory.

P-->Q
Q
Therefore, tentatively accept P until it is falsified.

Now let's say that Q turns out to be false. Then we have the following schema.

P-->Q
~Q
Therefore, P is false.

That syllogism is valid, by means of it we conclude that the theory P is said to be falsified. Then they come up with a new theory and test it until it is falsified. As I said this model is simple, but it illustrates the fact that science is self-correcting and dynamic. How many systems of faith can you say that about?
Click to expand...
I really liked this description Tom2. I personally am both a scientist (well an engineer anyway) and a devoutly religious person. What you say here is exactly correct. One thing about religion is that the important Q's are generally unfalsifiable (God loves me) and so the P's are also therefore unfalsifiable (God exists) by this method. Does this mean that religious faith is right or wrong? No, it only means that religious faith is unscientific since a scientific theory must be falsifiable. (This, by the way, is obviously the problem with "intelligent design" as a scientific theory: it is not falsifiable so it wouldn't qualify as scientific even if it were 100% correct)

Personally I feel that if all the P's and Q's line up then there is nothing wrong with accepting the story, particularly if there is some personal benefit to doing so. You just need to be aware that what you are doing is making a deliberate choice to believe something that can not be proven nor disproven. Doing so is definitely unscientific. Not that being unscientific is bad, just that it is outside of science. So recognize it and make your choice either way. And since your choice is unfalsifiable and unverifiable don't get too worried when other people don't make the same choice.

-Dale
 
I must say that Tom2's response and DaleSpam's response are the two most valuable responses to have been generated from my topic.
 
So does that statement mean you've learnt something about the scientific method? Can you look back and recognise the gross inaccuracies in your original post?
 
Arkantos said:
"Ah, I found a bunch of fossils and bones. Ah, I shall date them. Hmm... I going to have to say that this one came from this, and this from this and then that. Yes, these things...hmm...evolved! Yes, they came from each other. I've never seen it, but I shall have faith that my intepretation is right. C came from B which came from A. You just got to have faith my friends, that I interpreted the data right, since I've never seen this happen."

That's pretty much how it seems to me. What say you ?
Click to expand...

It seems that you have a pretty liberal definition of 'faith'.

A basketball rolls on sand. The ball leaves a track. Therefore, we know where the ball went if we see the track, even if we did not see the ball rolling. This is science.

A basketball sits on sand, without any marks in the sand. People declare that a UFO put the ball in the place where it sits, without evidence other than the presence of the ball itself. This is religion, but a little different from the realistic situation.

A basketball sits on sand, with a partially eroded but clearly distinguishable track indicating where it rolled. Most people say the ball rolled along the path, and a few people ignore the track and insist the UFO put it there. And there are still more who believe that it is a mystical orb from the center of the universe, and others who think it is a transcendental progeny from the two great lesbian goddesses, and yet still others who think that it is the forgotten testicle of her majesty the Pink Unicorn. This is similar to the contemporary situation.

They can arguably both be 'faith', but one type is more akin to reasoning based on facts, and the other superstition.
 
Last edited:
Arkantos said:
I must say that Tom2's response and DaleSpam's response are the two most valuable responses to have been generated from my topic.
Click to expand...

Their posts are very accurate and very well-put for describing science.

The current state of geological evidence is such that there is a solid, yet pliable and modifiable, framework in the evolutionary timescale that is very difficult to overthrow even in light of contrary discoveries. The 'Q' in Tom2's post doesn't correspond to a single hypothesis or supposition, but rather a whole labyrinth of a theory cataloging the evolutionary links between different extinct species that is consistent with the extant species of the present. It is modified and tweaked occasionally in light of new discoveries, but is extremely unlikely to be debunked as a whole anytime in the future.

Our understanding of the geologic timescale, and the intertwined dendrites of prehistorical taxa only strengthen with time.

Here's a question for you, Ark. Suppose a sample of 500 grams of isotope X decays after 50 years to yield 200 grams of X. Then, how many grams would be left for this isotope, X, if one takes an initial sample of 2 kg of X for an elapsed time of 11 years? What is the decay constant, k? What is the half-life of isotope X?
 
Facial said:
Their posts are very accurate and very well-put for describing science.


Here's a question for you, Ark. Suppose a sample of 500 grams of isotope X decays after 50 years to yield 200 grams of X. Then, how many grams would be left for this isotope, X, if one takes an initial sample of 2 kg of X for an elapsed time of 11 years? What is the decay constant, k? What is the half-life of isotope X?
Click to expand...

well, i gave it a try...

a) 1635 grams
b) .0183 1/yr
c) 37.877 years
 
Of course scientists use faith on a regular basis. When a scientist first conceives a hypothesis to explain some observations they frequently do so with only the most tenuous support for this hypothesis. They now invest much energy and time in investigating it.

This is done on the basis of faith. They have a belief that there idea is probably correct. (They are in love with its elegance and simplicity.) But here the similarity between religious faith and scientific faith ends.

If the evidence does not support their belief, despite repeated efforts to make it fit, they will abandon it. It may take time for them to accept their lovely idea was flawed. It may require major counter arguments from colleagues and savaging in papers by other researchers. Some of them may, unscientifically, cling to the idea till their deaths. But science will meanwhile have rejected it and moved on.

In science, faith is a helpful mindset at the outset of an investigation, but it is always subject to validation or falsification.
 
Arkantos said:
"Ah, I found a bunch of fossils and bones. Ah, I shall date them. Hmm... I going to have to say that this one came from this, and this from this and then that. Yes, these things...hmm...evolved! Yes, they came from each other. I've never seen it, but I shall have faith that my intepretation is right. C came from B which came from A. You just got to have faith my friends, that I interpreted the data right, since I've never seen this happen."

That's pretty much how it seems to me. What say you ?
Click to expand...

I would say that faith and guesswork are one and the same.

I see no science.
 
Poincare's Stepchild said:
As far as science education goes, I think it helps a lot to have a passionate science teacher at a young age. If all you see is that your teacher is bored by it, then I think that will strongly influence your future views.
Click to expand...

I'm a young biology teacher that totally agrees with you. Unfortunately (at least in the U.S.) the fundamentalist Christians are gaining steam are making it much more difficult to teach real science. I prefer to give students the evidence and allow them to come to their own conclusions. After all, this is the true nature of science. I welcome argumentation in my classroom.
 
Arkantos said:
I must say that Tom2's response and DaleSpam's response are the two most valuable responses to have been generated from my topic.
Click to expand...

Thanks, glad you thought so. This topic comes up all the time, and my response is almost reflex by now. I've made some other posts that had a nicer presentation, because they were made in LaTeX-enabled forums.

In case you're interested...

"Falsifiability" - has it been fully discredited? My opening remarks are in posts 2 and 3.
The fundamental concepts of physics are all based upon metaphysics The opening post is junk, I'd skip it. My rebuttal is in Post 10.
The scientific mechanism for accepting one theory over another.
 
spidergoat said:
This is just semantics. Yes, in a sense, you have to have faith in logical deduction and your own intelligence and skill in interpreting data, but this isn't the kind of faith they talk about in religion.
Click to expand...
Yet, this faith can be equally misleading.

It can all start with one basic wrong assumption --- which may have been put forward as a hypothesis, but slowly acquired the 'faith' of scientists (or those who control).

Things can go on adding, and after suitable number of repetitions and often with no other alternatives presented, the 'wrong' assumption can become the eternal scientific fact against which all future scientific theories and assumptions are based. One thing leads to another.
 
Hipparchia said:
If the evidence does not support their belief, despite repeated efforts to make it fit, they will abandon it.
Click to expand...
There are several instances where scientists do make 'reasonable hypotheses' which may not be true but they may get away with it. Some such instances are:

- when the nature of their subject is such that it can never be ascertained for sure --- at least with current tools available, e.g. pre-historic life forms.

- when the nature of their subect falls under a stream which is not 'perfect science', such as social science or human or animal behaviour. In such cases there is a lot of scope for making unwarranted assumptions.

- When the assumptions that they make have wide and popular social acceptability. When the society has a lot of stake in the assumptions. And when those in power --- including the scientists --- would not want things otherwise.
 
Faith is a VERY abundant thing in science classes. Perhaps even required.
Seriously, how many times have you seen someone believe in a principle without being able or bothering to understand it?
How many times do you have to accept a principle before you have fully accepted it? Very often complexities are brushed over... things that people spent years to develop.

Any time someone has believed what they were taught when they were taught wrong has done so based on faith (once again ignoring laziness). And that has happened a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top