Science is based on faith?

[Vigormortis]

Science must make assumptions which cannot be proven. Whether these count as faith is a matter of semantics.
1: The universe exists
2: It is possible to learn things about the universe
3: Our senses are at least sometimes accurate, and relay information about the outside universe.
These can never be proven, yet are vital ot beggining science or any evidence based learning. We can never know whether what we see and observe through data is correct, and not changed by some unknown entity, or if there really is anything to observe out there, yet we must accept that evidence is a trustworthy means of determining things, which cannot be proven by evidence. As long as we are aware of these assumptions I see no problem with it.

Except that, two of those three are more philosophy based rather than purely scientific. Even in quantum mechanics, such concepts are either quantifiable or "novelties".

Science operates on assumptions, of which can be proven wrong and adapted. Faith is an "infallible" belief that something is true, no matter what evidence may arise.

I actually displayed the definitions of faith and assumption in a previous post, so I won't do so here. It would just be redundant. (and space consuming)

[edit]
Actually, glancing at a few other posts, MeChaNiZ3D essentially said what I was going to say.

There is a difference between what is reasonable to assume and what is possible. Science does not suggest some wild pie in the sky explanation and then say "Well you can't prove that isn't true", they look at evidence to determine the best explanation they can come up with. If a better one that fits the EVIDENCE more closely comes along, they go with that. But faith isn't even that, it's a belief in something whether or not the evidence is there, and that has no place in science.

Good on you, Mechanized.

 

[Dwarfman]

I know mentioning Extra Credits here is somewhat taboo, but I am not so much interested in them as much as the can of worms they just inadvertently opened. In their recent two videos they pointed out that some of science's roots were grounded in belief, because we are dealing with things we cannot prove (however likely they may be). This started a discussion that caused a lot of people to become rather defensive and upset. They recently made their closing statement on the argument and I have to say I agree with them.
Science is still based on evidence, it just so happens the evidence we currently have for any given topic could be wrong, we might not be seeing the whole picture or the limitation of us being human is whats causing us to error (in other words we will never know the answer). Because of all that we have to take some degree of faith into it to make many of our theories work at all. I just think people are frightened at the idea that science might not be entierly infallible, even though it's usually not a big deal when our facts turn out to be wrong. After all, if we knew everything, we wouldn't learn anything.

What do you guys think?

Given that the vast majority of discoveries seem to be made by accident, that many of the truths scientists cling to are still theories and the simple fact that science is not infallible as it is OUR interpretation of how the universe works - and we all know what we're like - then absolutely, their is a huge degree of faith to it. Then again their is a huge degree of faith in anything we do. As Book from Firefly would say ' You don't need to believe in God, just believe in something' - or words to the effect.

The problem is is religion is the new taboo. And the big catch phrase for religion has always been faith. People hear you talking about faith and they'll instantly write you off as a religious nut without understanding what faith means which is a firm belief in something.

Do people out there honestly believe that scientists like Rutherford, Newton and Voltaire discovered what they did without the faith that what they were researching would come to fruition. Or that Edison and Archimedes didn't have faith in the things they invented. Or that all the great scientists and inventors history has blessed us with didn't have faith in themselves.

 

[Burst6]

Well i guess science requires faith, in the same way that walking outside of your NYC apartment despite the chance of being attacked by a tiger covered in pink paint requires faith. If your definition of faith is "accepting something that doesn't have a 100% chance of being true" then yes, science needs faith. As does everything you and anyone else will do ever in the history of forever.

If that is your definition of faith, and you try to argue that science requires faith, you aren't. You're just stating the obvious and then arguing semantics.

 

[texanarob]

There is a difference between what is reasonable to assume and what is possible. Science does not suggest some wild pie in the sky explanation and then say "Well you can't prove that isn't true", they look at evidence to determine the best explanation they can come up with. If a better one that fits the EVIDENCE more closely comes along, they go with that. But faith isn't even that, it's a belief in something whether or not the evidence is there, and that has no place in science.

I believe in many things without evidence. I believe the people posting on this thread to be separate individuals behind computers around the world posting their opinions. Alternative explanations include that someone somewhere is messing with me, using multiple accounts to generate a lot of nonsense, or that this is merely a dream.

I also believe that God not only exists and created us, but that he has given His Son as our path to salvation. A much bigger claim, but one I feel science will either never manage to prove, or the proof would take so long I'd be dead before they got there. I don't try to claim my belief is science, but merely observe that all evidence supports my belief.

Science only has two beliefs. If you want to call it faith then so be it.
1. We and the universe exist.
2. Reality exists as we see it.

Incidentally, anyone who is not willing to admit he could be a potatoe has to concede to these two beliefs, so it's not a science-exclusive belief club.

3. The laws of nature as we observe them are constant*, with no exceptions.
This is the assumption that rules out miracles, and therefore rules out God.

NB: Provided all physical factors are constant, such as position in space.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Science is not based on faith, at least not in a religious sense (but then neither are many religions. Their overly Christian-centered analysis of religion left that out. It was an episode where the fact that they didn't do their homework was painfully obvious).

However, science is based on unproven assumptions, as all paradigms are. And often acknowledging this fact makes people who are anti-theists for all the wrong reasons uncomfortable. Especially when you point out that the very things they use to bash religion(s) with is applicable to their paradigm.

All paradigms require unproven assumptions in order to structure knowledge. It is impossible to structure knowledge using the knowledge being structured as the source of structure itself. At some point all systems of information must boil down to a set of axioms that cannot be examined by the system itself. Some people don't like that, because they've built up a false notion of science in their head as some kind of god of knowledge whom, if one worships, will allow them to win arguments on the Internet. Which is rather silly, really.

I like this post and wish to add to it.

Theres a phrase i believe, an idea that if you can come up with something to describe EVERYTHING that descriptor is invalidated because its useless. If it can blanket EVERYTHING ever then whats the point of discussing it. Letd address this.

The definition of faith is basically the crux of the argument here. If, like extra credits, we take faith to be an "Unproven assumption" then every single moment every single thing you ever do ever in every nano second takes BILLIONS of HUGE leaps of faith. You have faith twitching your 40th eyelash will not cause a giant tentacle eye devouring terror demon to erupt from the nearest telephone and wreak havok on the earth by devouring the eyes of a thousand children. You can repeat this assumption ad nausium for every single irrational outcome ever for every action. Since "faith" by this definition describes all actions at all times ever in this scenario its a worthless descriptor. It may as well not apply. Its not worth discussing or considering. If THAT is our definition of faith ill happily concede we all apply it everywhere all the time every second and all humans always will be. Faith may as well be interchanged with "Being human". Which i think makes it a stupid definition of the word since we have no reason to argue about it being in all places at all times.

This definition of faith, as EC erroneously said, doesnt mean that ALL faith is equal in validity, that my faith my eyelash wont summon Xclotl the terror horror of eye devouring is as rational as the faith that you CAN summon Xcotl the horror terror by waving feathers at the sun.

Kat however, above, has defined it in a more useful way which is the definition i choose to use. Faith doesnt apply to science. Assumption does. However as stated above assumption, or faith or whatever you want to call it by this definition is a totally meaningless phrase.

Id also like to address the issue of "What if its the matrix". I dont understand why this is an issue. Surely we can just shift the boundaries of science to match whatever level of "Reality" anyone claims to be. It might be real life. it might be the matrix. It doesnt matter. Science seeks to understand OUR shared experience. Even if 99.9999% of that our is a computer and i am the only sentient human science STILL applies to my little subroutine. Even if its a dream. Even if its the matrix. it doesnt matter. Science never claimed it wasnt any of these things. All are equally valid to explore and experiment on so im willing to dive as many levels down as you want. Its a weak argument.

"What if its the matrix?"

"Then sciences purpose becomes lets explore the matrix."

"What if its a dream?"

"Then the goal becomes lets explore the dream."

The fun thing about science is you can shift boundaries based on discovery.

Science assumes an answer and attempts to prove it. If it the claim is wrong, science adjusts.
Faith states something as true and never posits the possibility of it being false.

Ergo, again, science is not "faith based".

Not so but youre damn close

Science never assumes an answer. Science looks at evidence and draws an answer from it so that people dont need to "Seek" to defend it. They should already possess an arsenal to defend it when they draw the conclusion. Faith assumes an answer and attempts to defend it.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Science must make assumptions which cannot be proven. Whether these count as faith is a matter of semantics.
1: The universe exists
2: It is possible to learn things about the universe
3: Our senses are at least sometimes accurate, and relay information about the outside universe.
These can never be proven, yet are vital ot beggining science or any evidence based learning. We can never know whether what we see and observe through data is correct, and not changed by some unknown entity, or if there really is anything to observe out there, yet we must accept that evidence is a trustworthy means of determining things, which cannot be proven by evidence. As long as we are aware of these assumptions I see no problem with it.

Except that, two of those three are more philosophy based rather than purely scientific. Even in quantum mechanics, such concepts are either quantifiable or "novelties".

Science operates on assumptions, of which can be proven wrong and adapted. Faith is an "infallible" belief that something is true, no matter what evidence may arise.

I actually displayed the definitions of faith and assumption in a previous post, so I won't do so here. It would just be redundant. (and space consuming)

[edit]
Actually, glancing at a few other posts, MeChaNiZ3D essentially said what I was going to say.

There is a difference between what is reasonable to assume and what is possible. Science does not suggest some wild pie in the sky explanation and then say "Well you can't prove that isn't true", they look at evidence to determine the best explanation they can come up with. If a better one that fits the EVIDENCE more closely comes along, they go with that. But faith isn't even that, it's a belief in something whether or not the evidence is there, and that has no place in science.

Good on you, Mechanized.

Understand that I am arguing that these assumptions are neccassary in order to do science at all. And they certainly cannot be proven or disproven, afterall proving that your senses are accurate means relying on evidence you can in no way observe, and learning that we can learn somthing about the universe is tautological. Science is based on evidence and reasoned logic, yet you cannot show that evidence and reasoned logic is in way valuble to a system of learning without, well reasoned logic and evidence. Though I will concede that these assumptions may or may not be faith, I do not wish to involve myself in the messy semantics there.

 

[Vigormortis]

Not so but youre damn close

Science never assumes an answer. Science looks at evidence and draws an answer from it so that people dont need to "Seek" to defend it. They should already possess an arsenal to defend it when they draw the conclusion. Faith assumes an answer and attempts to defend it.

Oh, I know. That's what I was saying.

However, often in the search for the answer to something, assumptions must be made in science. If nothing else than as a starting point in the quest for the facts.

The difference being, as you also put it, science doesn't ignore it's findings. Even if they refute the previous assumptions.

 

[Vigormortis]

Understand that I am arguing that these assumptions are neccassary in order to do science at all. And they certainly cannot be proven or disproven, afterall proving that your senses are accurate means relying on evidence you can in no way observe, and learning that we can learn somthing about the universe is tautological. Science is based on evidence and reasoned logic, yet you cannot show that evidence and reasoned logic is in way valuble to a system of learning without, well reasoned logic and evidence. Though I will concede that these assumptions may or may not be faith, I do not wish to involve myself in the messy semantics there.

Fair enough. In fact, I agree in many ways.

And, I don't blame you for not wanting to get into the semantics of the discussion. The definitions of faith and assumption seem to be at the crux of this whole discussion. Some, like the EC people, seem to be using the broadest, most general definition of faith. A definition so broad it's almost meaningless.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Actually most people believe science to be true without verifying the results of experiments. Believing without proof constitutes faith to me.

I think people have an issue with it because faith is usually related to religion and some people have a fear/hatred of religion. Religion is sometimes seen as the opposite of science and so people who don't like religion often go 'religion bad, science good'. (Seems odd since many major thinkers of our day are celebrated scientist and still have religious beliefs, so obviously they aren't mutually exclusive despite arguments to the contrary).

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

There is a difference between what is reasonable to assume and what is possible. Science does not suggest some wild pie in the sky explanation and then say "Well you can't prove that isn't true", they look at evidence to determine the best explanation they can come up with. If a better one that fits the EVIDENCE more closely comes along, they go with that. But faith isn't even that, it's a belief in something whether or not the evidence is there, and that has no place in science.

I believe in many things without evidence. I believe the people posting on this thread to be separate individuals behind computers around the world posting their opinions. Alternative explanations include that someone somewhere is messing with me, using multiple accounts to generate a lot of nonsense, or that this is merely a dream.

I also believe that God not only exists and created us, but that he has given His Son as our path to salvation. A much bigger claim, but one I feel science will either never manage to prove, or the proof would take so long I'd be dead before they got there. I don't try to claim my belief is science, but merely observe that all evidence supports my belief.

The evidence is that there are many different posting expressing different opinions or at least an opinion expressed differently, some made in close succession to each other and being part of a larger, consistent to each profile history of posts. I can't rule out that there is one person who types extraordinarily fast manipulating all these personas, or that there is a robot behind most of the posts, but I am inferring from the fact that I have a single account, some of the other users in the forum have disagreed with each other at times, I haven't seen or heard of a multiple-account-manipulating robot with this level of expression, and the typing would have to be very, very fast if it were a person, the most reasonable explanation is that there are a multitude of users posting their own comments. Similarly, I can't prove that at this moment I'm not a robot with implanted memories placed into a fabricated world, but considering that things happen as usual, it is more reasonable to assume they have been happening for a long time before I was born than that this is all a setup. And it could be a dream, we could all be in the Matrix, and in fact a change in the speed of light that occurred millions of years ago could support this, but that doesn't impact the rules of what is happening within the world.

Science cannot prove or disprove God. Because God has been explained in such a way that he is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and when he wants, undetectable. All others can do is point out inconsistencies and contradictions, but for all we know he orchestrated everything. Which is why I can't say "There is no God", but based on the evidence, I don't think there is one.

 

[TAdamson]

I think you're misunderstanding what was meant by "faith" in this context. By faith it's not meant to mean belief in a God but rather believing in something without being absolutely certain. It's really more of epidemiological argument - we can never be 100% certain anything we observe.

Science is built on the assumption that what we observe is correct - one can change their interpretation of an observation but the observation itself is assumed to be correct. The assumption that what we observe is correct is the basic "faith" that science is based on.

This was in an episode titled 'Religion in Games'

And the quote was


"Now we at Extra Credits have deep faith in science, we will defend it fiercely and say without hesitation that it is greatest most ennobling properties mankind has. But we understand just that, faith. The only difference between science and religion is that science takes faith as a starting point whereas for religion its the central tenant."



This is a mush-headed pronouncement.

Simple example: Scientifically if I'm testing the idea that water doesn't ignite I don't simply have "faith" that it won't. I sceptically check this proposition by applying flame to it.

Continuing this simple example: I can then write a paper that offers the conclusion that water does not ignite. Other scientists sceptical of my conclusion try to replicate my result. If they can further papers supporting my conclusion are written. Further scientists accepting my result might then test the proposition that water can be used to dowse fires.

I fail to see how this is faith.

 

[Something Amyss]

Science is still based on evidence, it just so happens the evidence we currently have for any given topic could be wrong, we might not be seeing the whole picture or the limitation of us being human is whats causing us to error (in other words we will never know the answer).

However, science is designed to provide the best possible answer, not the ultimate truth. Ideally, it would be the latter, but we're stuck with the former. the scientific community understands this. However, there is little point in arguing what might be true in the face of what we can demonstrate (Occam's Razor here). Not to mention, science is designed to test things with replicable results, so we never really have to take someone at their word.

Of course, you can choose to take it on faith, but to say that science is based on faith is really stretching the definition thin.

For instance, we know gravity works because we interact with it every day. But its still a "theory" as we don't completely understand it, hence the name "Theory of Gravity." Evolution is the same way. We think it happened and is happening and have evidence to support that, however we can never proof 100% that evolution is real. That's what science is. A constant revision of what we think we understand to something more likely.

You're using the common use of the word theory to explain the scientific use of the word theory. They're not the same thing.

 

[Something Amyss]

This is a mush-headed pronouncement.

It's also what I expect from Extra Credits. They don't seem to ever bother to fact check their science before talking about it. Or their content, period. This is mostly what's turned me off them. Not so much the claims that they are preachy or pretentious, but the fact that they don't seem to let their own lack of knowledge inhibit them from speaking on an issue.

On the other hand, there's really another issue here, and that's the fear of backlash from religious zealots. It leads most people to couch their terminology and make concessions, true or not.

I don't believe in it, but then there's a reason I don't have a webshow with scads of viewers. I mean, besides the restraining order.

 

[TAdamson]

They, in fact, pointed out that science is NOT BASED IN FAITH, but still needed faith as initial thrust. Were you even really listening, or did you instantly get pissed and stopped paying attention?

How is faith "needed" "as initial thrust"?

Faith is the belief in something in the absence of evidence and without needing evidence. Sometimes it exists, creationists are a good example, contrary to evidence.

By definition science is the complete opposite of this. Science requires evidence. Science can then quantify how confident we are that something is true.

A true scientist wouldn't just immediately get angry at someone's opinion... they'd want to test that opinion into the ground. But that's not what you're doing, neither of you, you're blindly getting angry at a perceived threat to your dogma. You're turning science into a religion...

I'm not getting angry. I'm just irritated by this mush-headed description of science. There is an element in the religious community that claims that science is just another belief system no different to religion, and messy statements like the ones from Extra Credits do not help.

And If you think that I'm "You're turning science into a religion" then fine, show me where I insist that something is true regardless of the lack of evidence, or the even the presence of evidence to the contrary? If I were doing that then you might have a ghost of a point.

which is, frankly, more insulting than the idea that I have to believe in some base ideas to be able to practice science.

Yes but you don't believe in these ideas in the absence of evidence do you? You don't know that fire is hot because somebody told you, you know from experience. You don't assume without checking that white light is made up of a spectrum of colours, you do the experiment. If believing in these things is "faith" then the word faith seems to have little meaning.

 

[Zeldias]

Everything we have contact with could be a complete falsehood, so in that sense, science goes on the faith that every observable thing is actually...Being observed, I guess. There's faith in the scientific method (although that feels like having faith that your car, which has been working fine since you got it, will work fine the next time you start it), there's faith that other scientists won't try to somehow BS you (which is more of a capitalist consumer concern, I suppose). But I don't think we can comfortably apply concepts of faith to the day to day work that goes into scientific exploration. Although maybe in a broader sense, faith can enter into the work of science.

I'm not really comfortable with the paralleling of science and religion, though, because the spirit of science is pioneering, and the spirit of religion is not; science quests, religion knows. And so science has faith, in a sense, that we will never know everything about the physically observable, while religion has faith that it answers all of the spiritually knowable (feelable? Conceivable?). So it's pretty apples and oranges, in the first place; science is observation looking for answers (WTF? Why is that butterfly red and this one blue?) while religion is looking for something entirely different.

I do think that non-scientists have a religious faith in science, though. Or just your average Western consumer. I see infomercials all the time with foot doctors talking about something is good for my back, or anal proctologists selling me a diet. And people buy it because "a doctor said" or "a scientist said." I had to suffer on anti-depression meds mistakenly diagnosed for months as a kid because a doctor fucked up the prescription, and my folks bought what he was saying just because he was a doctor. So if we're gonna talk about faith in science, I think it makes more sense to talk about the laymen/women than the "clergy," if you know what I mean. I think scientists get that their endeavor requires certain (I would say faith-based) assumptions about the desire and potential for human progress and the knowability of the universes for the most part (because why do it if there isn't a belief, that at some point, we will understand it, if not put it to use for the betterment of humanity?), but folks who just like scientific stuff (like that FUCK YEAH SCIENCE shit on Facebook and stuff) just trust what they read without really investigating and think stars are pretty or something. Makes me think of all the hubbub about the Higgs boson; a lot of non-scientists I knew (not that I'm a scientist- I do poetry, criticism, education, and that stuff, which all compels me towards research- just had no fucking clue and parroted headlines. It was like hearing little kids repeat the political opinions of their parents without any understanding of it.

 

[Strazdas]

Not trying to censor your discussion and it's totally your choice, but don't you think this would be better in Religion and Politics?

but it is neither religino nor politics, its science.


science made cakes.
cake is a lie.
means science is a lie.\

Science is as based off faith as the concept that I'm looking at my PC screen is

the point made is that you can never be 100% you are looking at your PC screen. maybe this post, its reply and all of the universe as you know it is a dream, a random burst of your brain that you experienced? can you prove it is not? then how can you be 100% sure?

 

[Tanis]

If science is based off faith...

Then religion must be based off taking things out of your arse and call 'em diamonds.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Science isn't based on faith, science is based on theory and evidence. Whether we know it 100% or not doesn't make it a choice of faith, it makes it open to being wrong. Sure, we put our faith into it, but that's an expression; it changes nothing.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Its not really faith, its theory, and its backed up with evidence - or as i call it, our best guess based on the facts we know. Religious faith is based on "a ghost told me" and that its.