Is Science Just Another Belief System?

[Locrian]

The issue my posts are concerned with is not reasonable certainty. The issue is certainty.

Of course there isn't any difference when discussing science. If I've suprised you by bringing something reasonable to your argument, you have my apologies - if you'd prefer, why don't you discuss something unreasonable, such as absolute certainty? If you chose to do so you could quickly backpedal into a hypocritical epistemological wasteland and declare victory.

I certainly wouldn't stop you, though I might comment amusedly from the wayside.

 

[Locrian]

I find it... interesting... how many times this same https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=56101", with tiny variations. Not that I'm not guilty of doing that from time to time I suppose.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What we know, we know, and what we don't know, we admit we don't know!

More like: What we reasonably know, we know. When does the admitting begin?

 

[russ_watters]

More like: What we reasonably know, we know. When does the admitting begin?

Go to the string theory forum and ask how strong the theory is - people there will readily admit that it is a weak one. Pick an appropriate forum and ask about the mechanism for gravity - people will readily admit there isn't one. Go to the Biology forum and ask about abiogenesis. People there will readily admit it is still highly speculative.

 

[Smurf]

But that doesn't make science a faith, it just means science isn't finished yet.

Is christianity finished yet?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Go to the string theory forum and ask how strong the theory is - people there will readily admit that it is a weak one.

When do you admit that you don't know what law governs a falling object, just the latest approximation. I'm putting you on notice, until you do, I think you are treating gravitation as if it were religion. Or at least as if it were string theory.

 

[russ_watters]

Is christianity finished yet?

Yes - and that is why it is a flawed way of exploring the natural world.

When do you admit that you don't know what law governs a falling object, just the latest approximation. I'm putting you on notice, until you do, I think you are treating gravitation as if it were religion. Or at least as if it were string theory. [emphasis added]

Huh? "Law"? You say that like that's a flaw in science. Jimmy, you fundamentally misunderstand the point of science: the point of science is to find better and better approximations of those natural laws. We know that our theories are probably only approximations of - if you like the analogy - laws that God has written on a stone tablet somwhere. That doesn't make them wrong or mean they aren't useful.

Once again, when I dropped my remote, it hit the ground. For that limited application, the existing theory of gravity is correct. I *know* that when I drop my remote - every time I drop my remote - it will hit the ground.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I *know* that when I drop my remote - every time I drop my remote - it will hit the ground.

This is different from your earlier statement. For one thing, now there are stars around the word 'know'. Why is that? Also, you have removed the phrase "as predicted by our current theory of gravity" even though it was this phrase that I had focused on. Why is that?

The original.

I know that when I dropped my remote, it fell to the ground, as predicted by our current theory of gravity.

[sorry - accidentally hit the edit button. -Russ]

 

[russ_watters]

This is different from your earlier statement. For one thing, now there are stars around the word 'know'. Why is that? Also, you have removed the phrase "as predicted by our current theory of gravity" even though it was this phrase that I had focused on. Why is that?

I'm adding emphasis, and rewording to see if you'll get it if it is phrased differently, that's all. I apparently need to do this because you are either ignoring or simply don't understand what I am saying.

You are not addressing my points, jimmysnyder. Your original response to that quote (post 20) didn't say anything useful, it was just a snide remark that utterly ignored/missed the content of my statement. No, you didn't focus on that phrase - you didn't even specifically cite it! Stop with the one-liners and make a reasoned argument for whatever your point is.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

No, you didn't focus on that phrase.

Yes. I did.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You are not addressing my points, jimmysnyder.

You make many points that I do not address. You make one point that I do address and I neither ignore nor misunderstand that point. You claim to know something. That alone makes me suspicious, as I only know one thing myself.

What is more, the thing that you claim to know is that matter in the real world falls according to our current understanding of gravity. I consider this a confusion between reality and model. I hope you understand my posts. But you removed that phrase from your latest version of what you know. I point that out because it looks to me like that which you knew last week, you no longer know this week. This is not how I use the word know. I don't put stars on it.

 

[russ_watters]

You make one point that I do address and I neither ignore nor misunderstand that point.

I really think you do, and by not elaborating on what you mean or discussing my follow-up points, you leave me nothing else to go on.

You claim to know something. That alone makes me suspicious,

Why?

...as I only know one thing myself.

What do you know and Why? You don't even know that the last time you dropped something, it hit the floor?

You aren't explaining yourself at all, here. These little one-liner jabs are not an argumet, jimmysnyder.

What is more, the thing that you claim to know is that matter in the real world falls according to our current understanding of gravity. I consider this a confusion between reality and model. I hope you understand my posts.

The only confusion I see is yours. This issue is pretty simple:

Einstein's (and Newton's) gravity predicted my remote would fall: prediction
My remote fell: reality
Conclusion: Einstein's/Newton's predictions were correct and therefore the theories are correct for this domain of applicability.

Therefore, I know that Einstein's and Newton's gravity accurately predicted my remote would fall.

But you removed that phrase from your latest version of what you know. I point that out because it looks to me like that which you knew last week, you no longer know this week.

No. That isn't what I was getting at at all.

This is not how I use the word know. I don't put stars on it.

Fine. Explain how you do use it!

I see three different uses, one for knowing what the theory says, one for knowing that the result happened, and one for knowing that the result matched the theory. The dictionary has 3 definitions that seem relevant to me:

1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
2. To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
3. To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.

-When I say I "know" my remote fell to the ground, that's definition 1. I directly perceived that my remote fell to the ground.
-When I say I "know" Newton's gravity predicted it would fall to the ground, that's #3. I understand that Newton's gravity predicts that the remote will fall to the ground.
-When I say I "know" that Newton's gravity is correct, that means I regard it as true beyond doubt, for this case, that the predictions matched the theory.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What do you know

I know one thing. The thing that I know is that I don't know any other thing.

and Why?

Because I am a skeptic. It's not that I doubt this or that piece of information, it is that I doubt my own ability to discern what is true and what is not true. Did you ever have a falling dream? I have. I dreamt that I was falling and it was real to me. Perhaps it was Newtonian or perhaps it was relativistic but I knew it was real and it was TRUE! But I awoke and it wasn't true after all. Dormio, ergo dubito. Science is different from religion, not because of its knowledge, but because of its doubt.

 

[quantumdude]

I know one thing. The thing that I know is that I don't know any other thing.

You seem to be arguing from a different epistemological framework than Russ is. According to the definition of knowledge that he gave, I do not see any reason to doubt his claim to knowledge.

Can you give a brief rundown of your theory of knowledge?

Because I am a skeptic.

That begs the question: Why aren't you skeptical about the one article of knowledge that you do claim to have?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

That begs the question:

Look up the phrase "Begs the question" in a dictionary that has a definition for it and post what it says there.

 

[quantumdude]

OK, I've misused the phrase. I hope you don't use that as an excuse to ignore the other things I said.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

According to the definition of knowledge that he gave, I do not see any reason to doubt his claim to knowledge.

Then don't. But if religion is also allowed to use his definition then the difference between science and religion disappears.

Can you give a brief rundown of your theory of knowledge?

Probably not. However, I feel that you couldn't know if things always fall unless your experiment involved dropping all things. But even then, how would you know if it wasn't a time dependent phenomenon that won't continue in the future?

Why aren't you skeptical about the one article of knowledge that you do claim to have?

You got me there. I no longer make the claim. I don't see how whittling me down from one piece of knowledge to none strengthens the case that I know plenty. If I don't know that I don't know, it leaves open the possibility that I know something, but not the certainty. And it gives no clue as to what the thing is that I might know. If I had to pick one, then it would be that I exist, not that things always fall. But again, it's not that I definitely know something, just that I might.

Why isn't the Science Book Reviews subforum (under the Academic & Career Guidance forum) visible from the main page?

 

[Son Goku]

Does trusting empiricism or the ability of our models to reflect reality actual make science a faith system though?

Yes, I'm going on gut instinct by believing that science can actually describe the world, however I don't think that level of "trust" can be genuinely called faith.

We can argue if the fields that come under the noun "Science" have properties which allow them to be slotted under the category "Faith system", but all we've done is argue the particulars of the English language.

If Science does require "Faith" of any kind, it is an extremely weak form of Faith that simply amounts to acknowledging that the bedrock principles of science aren't provable, but deciding to go with it anyway.

 

[russ_watters]

Jimmy, sorry, but this discussion is going nowhere. You're being pedantic (imagine me, the forum pedant saying that!) to the point where you aren't discussing anything. You aren't explaining what you find wrong with my point of view, and you refuse to explain your point of view. So I'm out, and my previous assessment remains: that you don't understand what "science" is or what it's point is.

 

[russ_watters]

Final thought...

Does trusting empiricism or the ability of our models to reflect reality actual make science a faith system though?
Yes, I'm going on gut instinct by believing that science can actually describe the world, however I don't think that level of "trust" can be genuinely called faith.

Fairly minor quibble: Trusting in empiricism is only necessary for the future, not the past. For the past, we have data, so we can say with certainty that we know empiricism has worked in the past. And though I guess I can see why you would consider it trust, going forward, I'd call it a matter of probability.

A specific scientist pursuing a specific line of research should have a probabilty of success calculated in the back of his mind, with which he weighed his career choice. If a scientist thought there was only a 25% chance of success, but a huge reward if he succeeded, he may still go for it. Add up all the science being done, though, and you end up with a daily probabilty of near 100% that something will happen to advance science today.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Why aren't you skeptical about the one article of knowledge that you do claim to have?

You got me there. I no longer make the claim.

Tch, Jimmy. Why didn't you just say "I don't know"? It was the answer predicted by your own claim!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Tch, Jimmy. Why didn't you just say "I don't know"? It was the answer predicted by your own claim!

Because if I want people to agree with me that I know something, then I will have to agree that they do. I prefer to back down.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You're being pedantic (imagine me, the forum pedant saying that!) to the point where you aren't discussing anything.

It turns out that we are not the only pedants. The Wiki page for Epistemology (thank Tim for the vocabulary) speaks of skepticism in nearly the same terms I do (a matter of not trusting oneself). As for the current understanding of gravity, Thomas Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", is the same kind of pedant. He points out that the variables in Newton's equations of motion are not the same as those in Einstein's. For instance, for Newton, mass is a conserved quantity. Time and space are absolute.

To this, I add that Newton's equations are not even valid in their so-called range of applicability. You can't mean that nature follows two laws of gravity, Einstein for Mercury and Newton for the other planets.

Newton's equation for planitary orbits agrees with Einstein's equation except for a term quadratic in the velocity. Only when the term is zero, i.e. only when the velocity is zero do the equations even superficially agree. This is why I say: Newton's equations of motion are only correct when there is no motion. Newton's equations also assume a flat space and time. But in the presence of matter spacetime is not flat. So Newton's equations of gravity are only correct when there is no matter, i.e. when there is no gravity.

As for not discussing anything, I am discussing your statement "What we know, we know, and what we don't know we admit". When I asked you what science knows, the answer was that things fall according to the current theory of gravity. I can't imagine a universe that obeys any of our obviously flawed theories. You may not agree, but to say that it isn't anything seems an unfair and unanswerable charge.

 

[Critical_Pedagogy]

Hello,
A friend of mine has a very bitter attitude towards science. We've had numerous arguments and his main reason for this bitterness is that science is just another faith system, kinda like a religion. I failed to convince him that unlike faith, science's strength is the fact that it is backed up by experiments, but nonetheless he always managed to defend his point. I know that our argument is purely formal and more of a play on words than anything else, but I would still like to prove my point.
So his claim is that I believe the different theories of physics just because I go to class and my professors or my textbooks tell me so, which is no different than going to church and believing what a preacher says there. But I said that unlike the church, I am able to check what I am being told through scientific experiments. So he asked me: Do you believe in the theory of gravity and I said yes and told him that I can give him a lot of experimental evidence. So he asked me, well what if someone tells you that an object falls downward because it is god's will, then it is very easy to construct a hypothesis that could be tested with millions of experiements and every time it will prove that the hypothesis that god's will makes objects fall is always correct !
I argued saying that in this case all that you've done was give gravity a different name (i.e. god's will)...but you can find other situations where this reasoning doesn't work too good.
How can you argue against that?

find another friend

 

[loseyourname]

Look up the phrase "Begs the question" in a dictionary that has a definition for it and post what it says there.

Oh, come on! It doesn't fit the technical definition of the informal logical fallacy known as "begging the question," but it certainly begs the question that he said it did.

 

[Smurf]

[sorry - accidentally hit the edit button. -Russ]

 

[Les Sleeth]

? If a thing has been "proven to work", then you have 0.0 % faith that it works, but you have some high percentage of uncertain knowledge that it works. For example, one does not hold by faith that gravity on Earth has been "proven to work", one holds it via knowledge gained by scientific method.

Sorry for taking awhile to respond, I just saw this.

You might not have understood my meaning. I am saying that faith grows in us naturally through our experiences, so there is experience-supported faith and blind faith (i.e., faith in that with which we have insufficient experience to warrant the level of faith we have).

There is no need to make faith and knowledge competitors, they are different things. Faith is really a certainty acquired from experiencing something consistently. I have faith the sun will dawn tomorrow. That doesn't mean I know it will, but it so consistently appears each morning that my faith is well established. It is similarly so with my meditation.

With conscious faith I rely on my accumulated experience with gravity, for example, to count on it to keep functioning so I can go about on this planet. With unconscious faith, say that I can fly if I pray hard enough, I might jump off a cliff to my death (unless I am lucky enough to have guessed correctly lacking any experience to base my faith on).

Likewise, one does not hold by faith that meditation has been proven to work, one holds it by knowledge gained via observation and experimentation on the human brain.

This is off topic, but you won't learn much about the experience of meditation through experimentation on the human brain.

I post again my philosophy on this: if what you hold to be true is based on 100 % faith, then you have 0.0 % knowledge of that which in reality is true.

Like I suggested above, this is non sequitur. Without faith you couldn't budge without worrying if something is going to work the way it has in the past. Without faith in empiricism, you couldn't continue to conduct your experiments. The empirical method produces knowledge, and faith is what allows you to trust the epistemology you are using.

 

[Rade]

There is no need to make faith and knowledge competitors, they are different things. Faith is really a certainty acquired from experiencing something consistently. I have faith the sun will dawn tomorrow. That doesn't mean I know it will, but it so consistently appears each morning that my faith is well established...The empirical method produces knowledge, and faith is what allows you to trust the epistemology you are using.

I find that you confuse "faith" with "reason". For example, I do not hold by faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, I hold it by reason. What is reason ? Reason is "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by human senses" (Ayn Rand). Clearly my lifelong observations of rising sun as a material object is provided to me by my senses and I have integrated these longterm facts via reason into a predictable pattern---0.0 % faith involved in the thought process, 100 % reason; but as you state, less than 100 % certainty (knowledge), which thus allows for a definition of science, e.g., knowledge without certainty. It is "reason" that allows me to trust the epistomology that I use, not faith. Clearly you base YOUR epistomology on "faith" (which is defined by Webster as "unquestioned belief" ) and not "reason", but I do not follow your philosophic bent.

 

[deepak9191]

what i think is that faith and experimentationare just 2 sides of a coin. there are people who use their brains in investigation and there are people who are centralised on their hearts to think. faith is just a measure to console yourself if your mind/ brain doesn't work. i recently heard that a man crucified himself and his wounds healed in an hour. that was the power of faith but this certainly can be the power of some new science tomorrow. so faith and science are equally powerful but it depends on your working frame, your center of thinking, that which side you feel.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I find that you confuse "faith" with "reason". For example, I do not hold by faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, I hold it by reason. What is reason ? Reason is "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by human senses" (Ayn Rand). Clearly my lifelong observations of rising sun as a material object is provided to me by my senses and I have integrated these longterm facts via reason into a predictable pattern---0.0 % faith involved in the thought process, 100 % reason; but as you state, less than 100 % certainty (knowledge), which thus allows for a definition of science, e.g., knowledge without certainty. It is "reason" that allows me to trust the epistomology that I use, not faith.

Singling out a narrow meaning of faith doesn't allow for much of a philosophical discussion. The word is derived from the Latin fidere, meaning "to trust" or more accurately, to "bide." To bide is to continue some state or condition, specifically because one trusts that state or condition from past experience with it. Admittedly, today faith has come to be associated with religion or religious-like belief. But whether we acknowledge it or not, everyone acts on faith in things they don't know are absolutely certain will continue because there is very little that we can know absolutely.

Your claim that it's all reason for you makes no sense. Are you saying that every morning you awaken before dawn you reason out the probability that the sun will soon be present? Do you put on layers of polar fleece just in case it's gone missing? Haven't you learned to trust reality in those ways that it has been consistent, or do you have to reason out every single time why reality should be some way? When we take actions without 100% knowledge that reality is waiting as it always has, we have lept into darkness to one degree or another. And if you don't reason out every single step you take like that, then I am defining your trust in reasonable probabilities as faith.

I am not arguing against reason in any way here; I am merely suggesting that there can be reasonable faith and ignorant faith, and that in fact reasonable people regularly act on faith/trust that reality will continue as it has. Also, if we have experience with something that has worked consistently in one area, it can give us reason to trust it to work in another related area.

Clearly you base YOUR epistomology on "faith" (which is defined by Webster as "unquestioned belief" ) and not "reason", but I do not follow your philosophic bent.

Have I failed to reason with you or anyone else around here? I am simply pointing out that science gives us reason to both have faith that it will continue to produce results in areas it already has, and that it deserve faith it will produce results in kindred areas where it hasn't been tested yet. From things you've said it seems you'd like the idea of reason-based faith.

 

[Rade]

what i think is that faith and experimentationare just 2 sides of a coin. there are people who use their brains in investigation and there are people who are centralised on their hearts to think. faith is just a measure to console yourself if your mind/ brain doesn't work.

It is my view that when someone says that they hold something true "from the heart", (rather than mind), what they are saying is that they function at the level of "perception", which is a neurological process that occurs within the primitive vertebrate brain stem (often called the reptilian brain). When you hold something "from the heart" you hold it 100 % via faith (which is defined by Webster as "unquestioned belief"). There is no integration of what you preceive via consciousness and reason to the next level, which is concept formation. Thus, I do not agree with you that "faith" and "reason" are two sides of the same coin, they are in my philosophy two different coins (penny and one dollar). I do agree with you that "faith" does provide comfort when as you say "your mind/brain does not work" (which is the conceptual process of reason that I refer to above), but definitions are critical to this discussion, faith is unquestioned belief, whereas reason always involves a process of thinking.

 

[Rade]

Singling out a narrow meaning of faith doesn't allow for much of a philosophical discussion.

I disagree. Narrow and clear "definitions" of "concepts" are critical to philosophic discussions. As you know, most likely all disagreements between philosophies derive from lack of agreement on definitions. "Faith" and "reason" are two completely different concepts and have two non-contradictory definitions, yet here you attempt to build a philosophy where you mix the two into a new concept that you call "reason-based faith". However, I hold that such a concept is a contradiction of terms, thus no logical argument can be derived from it. Sorry if you disagree, but this is what makes philosophy so interesting...the fact that you can build if you wish a philosophic bent based on a contradiction, but of course many such philosophies exist thoughout history (witness Hagel and his dialectic which demands that only contradictory reality exists).

But whether we acknowledge it or not, everyone acts on faith in things they don't know are absolutely certain will continue because there is very little that we can know absolutely.

Again, I hold this to be false. As I stated in my previous post, "everyone" does not act on "faith" in things they don't know (you do use the word "everyone"). I would suggest that more than a few people act on pure "reason", yet clearly YOU act on some mixture of reason-faith whatever it my be (which is OK with me), it is just not how I act. Note: I do not agree with the argument of Kant and his objection to the possibility of pure reason, perhaps another thread.

Are you saying that every morning you awaken before dawn you reason out the probability that the sun will soon be present? Do you put on layers of polar fleece just in case it's gone missing? Haven't you learned to trust reality in those ways that it has been consistent, or do you have to reason out every single time why reality should be some way? And if you don't reason out every single step you take like that, then I am defining your trust in reasonable probabilities as faith.

Here again, you confuse action based on faith (which is defined as unquestioned belief) with action based on reason (which always has some level of questioning going on). When I say that I hold from reason the thought that the sun will rise, I mean what I say, no faith is involved. Personally, I have not seen many sun rise events, but the few I have observed I recall that my counsciouness mind was very active in anticipation of the raising event in time and place on the horizon, and it is not clear to me that, for a moment of time, I did not think such a thought as (wow, what if today the sun does not rise). Let me provide another example of how pure reason is involved in the experience of future objects raising...I recently traveled by airplane, and in anticipation of the plane rising event you can be sure that I did not hold by any "faith" whatsoever that it would rise, there was a full mental integration of reasoning going on of the very small probability involved that it would NOT rise. It was pure reason alone that allowed me to put my head back and close my eyes during take off. If I were a religious person, I could see how this pure reasoning event could even lead to prayer, which in this situation for me would thus be an action from pure reason, not faith. Now, like you, I do not attack faith based action any more than you attack reason based action. I see around me many people that act via 100 % faith and refuse to activate reason in the choices they take.

From things you've said it seems you'd like the idea of reason-based faith.

Goodness no, this is a statement derived from a contradiction of terms, such a concept does not exist in my philosophy, that is, contradictory logic cannot be the basis of a philosophy worthy of humans.

 

[Les Sleeth]

. . . faith (which is defined by Webster as "unquestioned belief") . . . definitions are critical to this discussion, faith is unquestioned belief, whereas reason always involves a process of thinking.

If you were as philosophically astute as you present yourself, then it seems you would know that dictionary definitions are not considered the defining standard for philosophy. Rather, the standard is to talk about something in the different ways it is actually related to by humans.

It is my view that when someone says that they hold something true "from the heart", (rather than mind), what they are saying is that they function at the level of "perception", which is a neurological process that occurs within the primitive vertebrate brain stem (often called the reptilian brain).

Well, you are entitled to your theories, but you apparently know nothing about the potentials of the "heart." One can feel, not with emotions, but simply by being sensitive to reality, and that feeling realm will teach one without reason ever having to enter into things. It is a completely different type of learning than what is done through reason, and not in conflict with the reasoning process either.

When you hold something "from the heart" you hold it 100 % via faith. . .There is no integration of what you preceive via consciousness and reason to the next level, which is concept formation. Thus, I do not agree with you that "faith" and "reason" are two sides of the same coin, they are in my philosophy two different coins (penny and one dollar).

Nonsense. What is "held" from the heart can be totally based on experience. The heart can "know" just as well (better if you ask me) as the intellect can.

 

[Royce]

As I posted much earlier Merriam Webster On line defines "faith" as belief without proof not "unquestioned belief" which is far to narrow. Never the less even that narrow of a definition does not preclude reasoning, feeling or knowing. If one knows something one no longer questions it. As an Example none of us question that 2+2=4 yet few of us could prove it or even understand the number theory that can prove it providing one accepts (believes without question) certain assumptions and axioms. Rade, your position is every bit as much faith based, faith that your position is true and reasonable without question, as any belief system reasoned or not.

 

[reasonmclucus]

Hello,
A friend of mine has a very bitter attitude towards science. We've had numerous arguments and his main reason for this bitterness is that science is just another faith system, kinda like a religion. I failed to convince him that unlike faith, science's strength is the fact that it is backed up by experiments, but nonetheless he always managed to defend his point.

Unfortunately, scientists haven't been limiting themselves to those subjects which involve verification through experimentation and observation. Moreover there is a tendency for some scientists to make the strongest claims for "theories" that are the least susceptible to verification. For example, I support the basic idea of the Big Bang, but recognize that other possibilities exist including the steady state model supported by Fred Hoyle and the Burbidges.

Many scientists fail to recognize that a higher level intelligence might not be detectable directly. God or Gaia would be more likely to use existing physical processes rather than change them for specific situations.