- #1
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 844
- 15
How much faith is put in science? I addressed this question in PF 2.0...for now, I will leave this question open ended...
Originally posted by Kerrie
How much faith is put in science? I addressed this question in PF 2.0...for now, I will leave this question open ended...
Originally posted by Lifegazer
When our scientists pursue a material-cause for everything,
No. The closest thing to faith in science is the assumption that all currently calculated "natural" laws are false. What matters is comparatively how one law is by observation more false than the other. If these predictions turn out wrong, you find another theory. At least, ideally speaking. An assumption of "mistake in calculations" undermines the idea of peer review, and appeals to unscientific dogma. We don't have faith in a theory. We say we have nothing better at this time.Originally posted by (Q)
Faith is also defined as complete confidence in a person, plan, etc.
With this definition, scientists have faith that the natural laws of the universe should always produce the same results. Based on those laws, scientists have faith they can predict results within a high degree of accuracy.
If their predictions turn out to be wrong, it is usually not a case of having bad faith, so to speak, but instead, a mistake in calculations.
Correction: "scientific facts" without the opportunity to test them are not facts, but hypotheses/postulates. If we have confidence something to be a fact without testing, then we show faith. If we plan later to test it, and keep trying to disprove it, and instead show that IF x is true y MUST be true, that is not faith.Originally posted by Loren Booda
Because of our limited intelligence, at least initially we must assume most scientific facts on faith until (if ever) we have the opportunity to test them.
Originally posted by Phobos
Here are the faiths of science...
(1) The universe exists.
(2) The universe works according to certain laws (patterns).
(3) Those laws are understandable.
The rest is tested.
Originally posted by Phobos
I posted back in PF 2.0. Here's the Reader's Digest version...
Here are the faiths of science...
(1) The universe exists.
(2) The universe works according to certain laws (patterns).
(3) Those laws are understandable.
The rest is tested.
Sure, one could argue that a scientist has some level of faith in the conclusion of others (every scientist cannot personally re-test every scientific law and theory). But there is no "authority" in science. Conclusions are based on a consensus of experts...experts who do re-test things under their specialty and make modifications to theories when needed.
That's a fact.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Loren Booda
Because of our limited intelligence, at least initially we must assume most scientific facts on faith until (if ever) we have the opportunity to test them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correction: "scientific facts" without the opportunity to test them are not facts, but hypotheses/postulates. If we have confidence something to be a fact without testing, then we show faith. If we plan later to test it, and keep trying to disprove it, and instead show that IF x is true y MUST be true, that is not faith.
Originally posted by Phobos
I posted back in PF 2.0. Here's the Reader's Digest version...
Here are the faiths of science...
(1) The universe exists.
(2) The universe works according to certain laws (patterns).
(3) Those laws are understandable.
Originally posted by zimbo:
I agree with those. I would have added that we have faith that those laws of the universe are fundamental and unchangeable over time. (Hence scepticism about induction: So far, each time I drop a piece of paper in my room, it falls. But am I using faith when I believe that the same will happen whenever I do it in the future?)
Originally posted by Mentat
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demostration of realities, though not beheld" (Hebrews 11:1).
I think this sums it up pretty well. Science is not based on faith, because the "demonstration of realities" is beheld.
Would one define "after experimentation" as when the wavefunction has "collapsed"? Are faith and physical reality then antithetical? Does the wavefunction represent faith before experimental measurement?I agree with Adam here. Faith may be involved in the first two steps of the Scientific Method (the ones I attribute to being in the realm of "Philosophy"), but it has no place, after experimentation.
Originally posted by LURCH
I think this is an excellent disription of the faith modern man places in science. I would wager that most of us here are fairly confident that medical science will eventually discovered a cure for cancer. This confidence is "faith" as described by the biblical passage above. There is "evident demonstration" in the fact that medical science has solved many similar problems in the past. However, no one has ever "beheld" medical science actually finding the cure for cancer.
Originally posted by Mentat
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demostration of realities, though not beheld" (Hebrews 11:1).
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.