Science is based on faith?

[Sight Unseen]

That's the difference between science and religion. Science questions the things it takes on faith constantly, and keeps questioning and testing over and over again. In religion, questioning your faith is a big no-no.

Actually the process you describe is basically the same that has created most of the present understanding of christianity.
There is a reason why most "scientist" of the enlightenment was theologians. It was the only higher education that existed in Europe at the time and the people who became great theologians at the time was the people who could look at something (nature/scripture) and say if A is.. and B is... then there must be a C.

There is a huge difference between blind faith in something and well thought faith in something and you find that on both sides of the argument.

Most religious people who don't put their heads up their asses and go lalalalalala see science as another form of contact with the divine not something to work against. That is why they get annoyed whenever they are told that they are wrong because science says so. (I am well aware that that is not necessarily what science says but it is often used as such) Especially when the arguments that are used to use science like that is flawed.

Oh.. so that's why the Church publically shamed Galileo and forced him not to publish his work on Heliocentrism... they cared about truth SO MUCH that they couldn't allow him to rely on his blind faith to corrupt the masses... hey wait a second...

That's why everyone demonizes Charles Darwin (who was a Theology major)...

The church only allows science to proceed unscathed if it doesn't attempt to usurp the churches established opinion on something...

 

[dvd_72]

Solipsism is a philosophical thought experiment that really has no footing in science or any practical use to scientists. If its true that all of reality is an illusion or fake then it doesn't matter what the scientists are doing because they're all imaginary. If it's not true and this reality is in fact real, then the scientists are still doing what they always do, making testable, predictive and repeatable models for reality.

But if science is based on observations, then one cannot do any science without taking it on faith that reality is... well real. If we cannot accept that on faith, then we cannot do science in any meaningful way. When you are dreaming at night, the rules for the dream vary between dreams. In some you can fly, in others you cannot. Sometimes the rules change within a dream! And you know what? From your point of view in the dream there is no test to show that the world in your dream is any more real than the waking world. It is, for all intents and purposes, annother reality, yet we all accept that what happens when we dream to be a dream (hence calling it a dream I guess). We need to accept reality to be real on faith in order to even begin to do any kind of meaningful science.

As was talked about in the extra credits video even our basic geometry relies on certain statements that must be taken as true on faith. Many of these may be obvious, and others a little harder to see but without them much of our maths wouldn't work. Even parts of our maths have a basis in faith!

And how about some modern day examples? The Schroedinger equation comes to mind. It's an equation that can be used to extract any information about a quantum system you want, but there was no logic to its formulation other than "This seems to work in all the situations we've put it in and it accurately predicts various phenomena, but we have no way to derive it!".

 

[V8 Ninja]

Thinking about this topic for several days in an on-and-off manner, I've come to the conclusion that Extra Credits really failed to define what "Faith" actually is. As this undefined nature was amorphous, people instantly attached the concept to the religious type of faith that was discussed throughout the videos and thus the switch in the discussion from religious faith to the type of faith described in dictionaries didn't quite click with people. So yeah, EC failed to define a term strongly enough to disassociate two very different concepts that have been created.

 

[Sight Unseen]

Solipsism is a philosophical thought experiment that really has no footing in science or any practical use to scientists. If its true that all of reality is an illusion or fake then it doesn't matter what the scientists are doing because they're all imaginary. If it's not true and this reality is in fact real, then the scientists are still doing what they always do, making testable, predictive and repeatable models for reality.

But if science is based on observations, then one cannot do any science without taking it on faith that reality is... well real. If we cannot accept that on faith, then we cannot do science in any meaningful way. When you are dreaming at night, the rules for the dream vary between dreams. In some you can fly, in others you cannot. Sometimes the rules change within a dream! And you know what? From your point of view in the dream there is no test to show that the world in your dream is any more real than the waking world. It is, for all intents and purposes, annother reality, yet we all accept that what happens when we dream to be a dream (hence calling it a dream I guess). We need to accept reality to be real on faith in order to even begin to do any kind of meaningful science.

As was talked about in the extra credits video even our basic geometry relies on certain statements that must be taken as true on faith. Many of these may be obvious, and others a little harder to see but without them much of our maths wouldn't work. Even parts of our maths have a basis in faith!

And how about some modern day examples? The Schroedinger equation comes to mind. It's an equation that can be used to extract any information about a quantum system you want, but there was no logic to its formulation other than "This seems to work in all the situations we've put it in and it accurately predicts various phenomena, but we have no way to derive it!".

Like I said before, science is essentially the process of creating models of our present reality and the only thing it requires is that the world we're studying be consistent and repeatable enough to create our models from (this is confirmable since experiments always have the same results). Models do not NEED to be theoretically derived. I'm in engineering, and MANY of the models that I end up using were actually derived empirically, with no theoretical basis, and they work absolutely fine (although they are generally only applicable for a certain range of conditions and require extensive testing to create) So Schroedinger's model does not need to be based on any theory as long as it can be experimentally shown to be valid for the conditions for which it is claimed to be relevant to.

About the dream thing, if I could spend long enough in a dream, and the laws of the dream world weren't constantly changing arbitrarily, I could use science to model out how my dream world worked (talk about a boring dream though). It doesn't matter if it's really *real* as long as the laws aren't constantly changing, but that is testable.

 

[AnarchistFish]

If anything philosophy is more important than science. And until we fully understand the nature of existence and the universe we can't truly know anything about the world..

 

[Kanyo]

Solipsism is a philosophical thought experiment that really has no footing in science or any practical use to scientists. If its true that all of reality is an illusion or fake then it doesn't matter what the scientists are doing because they're all imaginary. If it's not true and this reality is in fact real, then the scientists are still doing what they always do, making testable, predictive and repeatable models for reality.

But if science is based on observations, then one cannot do any science without taking it on faith that reality is... well real. If we cannot accept that on faith, then we cannot do science in any meaningful way. When you are dreaming at night, the rules for the dream vary between dreams. In some you can fly, in others you cannot. Sometimes the rules change within a dream! And you know what? From your point of view in the dream there is no test to show that the world in your dream is any more real than the waking world. It is, for all intents and purposes, annother reality, yet we all accept that what happens when we dream to be a dream (hence calling it a dream I guess). We need to accept reality to be real on faith in order to even begin to do any kind of meaningful science.

As was talked about in the extra credits video even our basic geometry relies on certain statements that must be taken as true on faith. Many of these may be obvious, and others a little harder to see but without them much of our maths wouldn't work. Even parts of our maths have a basis in faith!

And how about some modern day examples? The Schroedinger equation comes to mind. It's an equation that can be used to extract any information about a quantum system you want, but there was no logic to its formulation other than "This seems to work in all the situations we've put it in and it accurately predicts various phenomena, but we have no way to derive it!".

"You have to take on faith that things which are demonstrably true are true"? Yeah, sure we could all be in the Matrix, or in the head of an autistic mental patient, or any number of other unfalsifiable pseudo-hypotheses. Thing is, with literally zero reason to think that's the case there is, well, no reason to think that's the case.

A lot of people make this epistemological mistake, that science finds out what is "true". For the most part though, the scientific process determines only what is false. Nothing in science is ever proven; by its logical underpinnings, nothing CAN be proven. Ideas can, however, be disproven, suhc as phlogeston or the Lamarckian idea evolution. In order for an idea to be scientific, there must be a potential way for that idea to be falsified. So the question of whether or not we're in the Matrix as a starting assumption is irrelevant to science because there's not any way we could ever determine whether or not we were. The assumption that science works under the conditions where science works is not a faith-based assumption, and that is the only base assumption that you need in order to accept scientific methodology as a whole.

 

[Zen Toombs]

Science isn't based on faith any more than religion is. Faith is simply belief without understanding. You can have faith in science, and you can have faith in religion, but science is based on observation and experimentation while religion is based on written and oral transmission of past testimony.

Laymen have faith(or do not) that scientists are conducting experiments properly and thoroughly before reporting their findings. Theists have faith that the testimony they take their wisdom from is based on true events and has been been transmitted accurately and without secular tampering. So no, science is not based on faith, but people put their faith in science everyday.

Spoiler: For my part, I think XKCD puts it better than I can:

I love that comic. And I'm sorry to be that guy, but science is also based upon written and oral transmission of past testimony. Scientific studies are based upon the research that has already been done, which is why we comb through journals for relevant articles.

Additionally, scientists are placing their faith that the evidence of their senses is true, and that the evidence from their measurements is correct, and that the evidence given to them by others who were using rigorous methods is correct. These are very reasonable and basic assumptions, but in order to progress you need to assume at least some of these things. And if you are assuming something, you are taking it on faith that it is true.

I want to reemphasize that these are small and extremely reasonable assumptions[footnote]especially the "we can trust our senses" assumption. While it is impossible to completely prove 100%, it is a reasonable assumption because the world around us follows consistent rules and because it would be silly to NOT work under the assumption that what we see is real. As XKXD says, it WORKS, bitches.[/footnote], and that scientists do what they can to minimize the effects of those assumptions (double checking unusual data, repeating previous experiments, etc), but they are still making assumptions and still working on faith that those assumptions are true.

 

[dvd_72]

Like I said before, science is essentially the process of creating models of our present reality and the only thing it requires is that the world we're studying be consistent and repeatable enough to create our models from (this is confirmable since experiments always have the same results). Models do not NEED to be theoretically derived. I'm in engineering, and MANY of the models that I end up using were actually derived empirically, with no theoretical basis, and they work absolutely fine (although they are generally only applicable for a certain range of conditions and require extensive testing to create) So Schroedinger's model does not need to be based on any theory as long as it can be experimentally shown to be valid for the conditions for which it is claimed to be relevant to.

About the dream thing, if I could spend long enough in a dream, and the laws of the dream world weren't constantly changing arbitrarily, I could use science to model out how my dream world worked (talk about a boring dream though). It doesn't matter if it's really *real* as long as the laws aren't constantly changing, but that is testable.

Let me first see if I understand you correctly. You seem to say that validity of an observation only depends on its repeatability and predictability and not on how "real" or valid the reality you are observing is.

While I can see your point, and I'm not saying it's wrong, it's not an idea I can accept for myself. For me, observations that are made of a reality that isn't real cannot be used to base science on. This does not mean that observations based on something like an incomplete perspective are invalid, as they can be seen as true within certain boundaries of scale, much like applying flat plane geometry here on earth on scales much smaller than the earth's curvature is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Sight Unseen]

If anything philosophy is more important than science. And until we fully understand the nature of existence and the universe we can't truly know anything about the world..

Do we fully understand the nature of existence yet? I don't think so.

But for us to even have the priviledge of conversing in this medium required the combined efforts of centuries of scientific advancements...

It's a really weak argument to say that we don't know ANYTHING without knowing the nature of existence, because that's obviously false.

 

[Zen Toombs]

If anything philosophy is more important than science. And until we fully understand the nature of existence and the universe we can't truly know anything about the world..

As someone who loves philosophy, that is silly. It has been well established that the only thing we can prove with absolute certainty is that YOU, the reader, are a thing that is presently thinking and receiving perceptions. Everything else rests on some very small, very reasonable assumptions, but those assumptions cannot be proven 100% by our human minds.

Also, if you are a Empiricist[footnote] believe that experience, not reason, is the ultimate source of knowledge.[/footnote] instead of an Rationalist[footnote] believe that reason, not experience, is the ultimate source of knowledge. A more thorough explanation of the two lies behind this elegant and finely crafted link [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/][/footnote] then we NEED the hard sciences and the rigor of the scientific method to assist us in showing the nature of existence.

EDIT: Also, as has been said before, I shall quote the great XKCD:
[HEADING=3]SCIENCE: Because [it] WORKS, bitches.[/HEADING]

 

[Therarchos]

That's the difference between science and religion. Science questions the things it takes on faith constantly, and keeps questioning and testing over and over again. In religion, questioning your faith is a big no-no.

Actually the process you describe is basically the same that has created most of the present understanding of christianity.
There is a reason why most "scientist" of the enlightenment was theologians. It was the only higher education that existed in Europe at the time and the people who became great theologians at the time was the people who could look at something (nature/scripture) and say if A is.. and B is... then there must be a C.

There is a huge difference between blind faith in something and well thought faith in something and you find that on both sides of the argument.

Most religious people who don't put their heads up their asses and go lalalalalala see science as another form of contact with the divine not something to work against. That is why they get annoyed whenever they are told that they are wrong because science says so. (I am well aware that that is not necessarily what science says but it is often used as such) Especially when the arguments that are used to use science like that is flawed.

Oh.. so that's why the Church publically shamed Galileo and forced him not to publish his work on Heliocentrism... they cared about truth SO MUCH that they couldn't allow him to rely on his blind faith to corrupt the masses... hey wait a second...

That's why everyone demonizes Charles Darwin (who was a Theology major)...

The church only allows science to proceed unscathed if it doesn't attempt to usurp the churches established opinion on something...

The church did make some bad decisions never said otherwise (but would like to point out that they have been accused of plenty that they didn't do like saying to Columbus that he shouldn't go because the earth is flat. They said he shouldn't go because it was too long to India which was correct). You confuse a system based about power (the catholic church, the mormon faith, hinduism etc. with the people practicing it. The basic flaw in any discussion about religion or science (anything that has more than one follower) is that the individual is mistaken for the whole. An example; A pope says lets go on a crusade all of catholisism goes on a crusade 1500 years later every religion is bad (simplified) is the same as saying Hitler was democratically elected ergo democracy hates jews and so does germans. The world is not that simple. One of the most influential people on the christian faith was a former crusader who couldn't reconcile the crusades with his faith (Franz of Assisi) and one of the most democratic countries in the world today is Germany.

 

[hermes]

Yes, but its not the same word used in religion.

Faith in science is defined as prerequisites, as axioms that have to be true to keep the discussion going; is used as a starting point. You assume something to be true and then build a theory around it and see if it explains the result of observations. If it fails, you reformulate the theory or the axioms.

Faith in religion is defined as the cohesive force that holds it together. Its not a starting point, its the mean and the end.

 

[dvd_72]

"You have to take on faith that things which are demonstrably true are true"? Yeah, sure we could all be in the Matrix, or in the head of an autistic mental patient, or any number of other unfalsifiable pseudo-hypotheses. Thing is, with literally zero reason to think that's the case there is, well, no reason to think that's the case.

A lot of people make this epistemological mistake, that science finds out what is "true". For the most part though, the scientific process determines only what is false. Nothing in science is ever proven; by its logical underpinnings, nothing CAN be proven. Ideas can, however, be disproven, suhc as phlogeston or the Lamarckian idea evolution. In order for an idea to be scientific, there must be a potential way for that idea to be falsified. So the question of whether or not we're in the Matrix as a starting assumption is irrelevant to science because there's not any way we could ever determine whether or not we were. The assumption that science works under the conditions where science works is not a faith-based assumption, and that is the only base assumption that you need in order to accept scientific methodology as a whole.

Can we agree that observation is the primary method by which science tests, confirms and disproves hypothesese?

If so, then you should realise that the validity of our observations is dependent on our reality being truely immutable an unchanging. This cannot be proven OR disproven, and so if we intend to continue learning more and more about the universe we have to accept, on faith and without proof, that our reality is ... well as we see it. If we cannot trust our observations, then we cannot trust anything that comes from them even if it seems repeatable.

By accepting our universe as the true reality (again, on faith) science is able to do its thing second-guessing itself and have the tools it needs to do so.

As you said in your first paragraph there's no reason to think we're in the matrix, or some delusion, but there's no reason to think we're in a true reality either. It's just something we need to accept if we intend to do anything meaningful with our lives.

 

[Sight Unseen]

That's the difference between science and religion. Science questions the things it takes on faith constantly, and keeps questioning and testing over and over again. In religion, questioning your faith is a big no-no.

Actually the process you describe is basically the same that has created most of the present understanding of christianity.
There is a reason why most "scientist" of the enlightenment was theologians. It was the only higher education that existed in Europe at the time and the people who became great theologians at the time was the people who could look at something (nature/scripture) and say if A is.. and B is... then there must be a C.

There is a huge difference between blind faith in something and well thought faith in something and you find that on both sides of the argument.

Most religious people who don't put their heads up their asses and go lalalalalala see science as another form of contact with the divine not something to work against. That is why they get annoyed whenever they are told that they are wrong because science says so. (I am well aware that that is not necessarily what science says but it is often used as such) Especially when the arguments that are used to use science like that is flawed.

Oh.. so that's why the Church publically shamed Galileo and forced him not to publish his work on Heliocentrism... they cared about truth SO MUCH that they couldn't allow him to rely on his blind faith to corrupt the masses... hey wait a second...

That's why everyone demonizes Charles Darwin (who was a Theology major)...

The church only allows science to proceed unscathed if it doesn't attempt to usurp the churches established opinion on something...

The church did make some bad decisions never said otherwise (but would like to point out that they have been accused of plenty that they didn't do like saying to Columbus that he shouldn't go because the earth is flat. They said he shouldn't go because it was too long to India which was correct). You confuse a system based about power (the catholic church, the mormon faith, hinduism etc. with the people practicing it. The basic flaw in any discussion about religion or science (anything that has more than one follower) is that the individual is mistaken for the whole. An example; A pope says lets go on a crusade all of catholisism goes on a crusade 1500 years later every religion is bad (simplified) is the same as saying Hitler was democratically elected ergo democracy hates jews and so does germans. The world is not that simple. One of the most influential people on the christian faith was a former crusader who couldn't reconcile the crusades with his faith (Franz of Assisi) and one of the most democratic countries in the world today is Germany.

I'm certainly not trying to state that all people who are religious are completely deadset against science, so I'm sorry I gave that impression. But really when judging past history it's impossible to base the religious reception of science on anything other than the official positions held by the church leaders, because I can't go back in time to talk with every lay person to see what they thought ( chances are most never even heard about Galileo because the Church tried to silence him.)

But historically anyway, religious groups have always tended to impede science in anything that they feel might put doubts about their religion into the minds of their followers. the individual layman religious person may never even have known it was going on or just didn't mind or didn't care.