Does Science require faith?

[mac]

Read an interesting article I thought I would share:


Does Science Require Faith? : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

Thoughts?

 

[phattonez]

I don't have the time to read it, but yes. All science depends on causation and human reason. If you don't trust those then you have no reason to believe science.

 

[spud_meister]

Everything requires faith. :shrug:

 

[OscarB63]

Read an interesting article I thought I would share:


Does Science Require Faith? : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

Thoughts?

all research is based on assumptions about how we perceive the world and how we can best come to understand it. In many cases, we have to accept these assumptions "on faith".

 

[Manc Skipper]

That would depend on which definition of the word "faith" is used. Trusting the evidence, and belief depite the evidence, are entirely different things.

 

[Fisher]

Of course it does. The number of people who assert scientific theory as fact should be evidence enough of that. Even the scientific method is based on assumption.

 

[OscarB63]

It's been nearly 30 years so my swiss cheese brain doesn't remember the details. but when I was in college, there was one equation where a certain integer constant was assumed to be "1". the only reason this assumption was made was because the equation didn't work with any other value. :shrug:

 

[head of joaquin]

I don't have the time to read it, but yes. All science depends on causation and human reason. If you don't trust those then you have no reason to believe science.

That's not faith. Those are philosophical assumptions. Science assumes methodological naturalism. But every assumption isn't faith.

 

[phattonez]

That's not faith. Those are philosophical assumptions. Science assumes methodological naturalism. But every assumption isn't faith.

And on what basis do you affirm those philosophical assumptions?

 

[mac]

That's not faith. Those are philosophical assumptions. Science assumes methodological naturalism. But every assumption isn't faith.

What is it then?

 

[head of joaquin]

And on what basis do you affirm those philosophical assumptions?

Practical reasons. Methodological naturalism leads to useful predictions, as practice has shown. Consulting a prophet doesn't.

 

[head of joaquin]

What is it then?

Philosophical assumptions that are the basis of a realm of knowledge. To conflate a philosophical assumption with religious fate is both bad philosophy and bad religion.

 

[mac]

Philosophical assumptions that are the basis of a realm of knowledge. To conflate a philosophical assumption with religious fate is both bad philosophy and bad religion.

Why is that?

 

[Ben K.]

No.

A personal faith in a scientific hypothesis can be destroyed by someone else presenting evidence and that person must change their opinion if abiding by scientific methodology.

 

[ecofarm]

Faith is belief without physical evidence. Science is based on physical evidence. They're quite opposites.

 

[head of joaquin]

Why is that?

Because philosophical assumptions have practical implications that can be either confirmed or disconfirmed. Faith can't be.

Thus methodological naturalism is assumed to be superior to astrology because it appears to result in more useful prediction about things we care about. But if it turns out that it doesn't, then scientists (and the rest of us) would abandon methodological naturalism and instead use astrology. If astrologers were better at providing cures for cancer than doctors, we'd all flock to the local astrologer.

Faith, in contrast, isn't dependent on empirical confirmation. Indeed, as Paul points out, that that it is disconfirmed by empiricism is considered in its favor. If faith were confirmed by fact, then it wouldn't be faith. It would be empiricism.

 

[mac]

Because philosophical assumptions have practical implications that can be either confirmed or disconfirmed. Faith can't be.

How can they be "either confirmed or discomfirmed"?

Thus methodological naturalism is assumed to be superior to astrology because it appears to result in more useful prediction about things we care about. But if it turns out that it doesn't, then scientists would abandon methodological naturalism and instead use astrology.

Assumed?

Faith, in contrast, isn't dependent on empirical confirmation. Indeed, as Paul points out, that that it is disconfirmed by empiricism is considered in its favor. If faith were confirmed by fact, then it wouldn't be faith. It would be empiricism.

Which kind of faith?

 

[mac]

Faith is belief without physical evidence. Science is based on physical evidence. They're quite opposites.

So, is the notion that homosexuality is genetic faith or science? (for example)

 

[head of joaquin]

How can they be "either confirmed or discomfirmed"?

Easily. Medical science uses methodological naturalism to propose cures for sickness. If its predicted cures are worse than consulting an oracle, then consult an oracle. The purpose of science is making useful predictions. That's why we use methodological naturalism. If it stops doing that, then time to move on and find other assumptions that are more useful. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Assumed?

Yep, a good assumption given the progress it's provided. But still an assumption that subsequent facts can rebut.

Which kind of faith?

Religious faith -- faith in other than material causes.

 

[Paschendale]

No, there is no faith involved. Science does not need faith. We don't need to believe that science works. It does work. Planes fly. Televisions pick up signals bouncing off of satellites in outer space. Medicine cures people. Computers compute and allow us to post on these forums. No amount of faith in any direction will change that. Science does not require belief. It works regardless of how we feel. Stars fused heavier elements and oceans were churned by hurricanes long before we were here to notice, and will continue to do so long after we are gone. No amount of our thoughts or feelings on the subject will ever affect that.

False equivalence between science and religious fables is just nonsense. It is a pathetic attempt to discredit science by dragging it down to the level of fairy tales. Science is better than that. Science works. No amount of praying or mushroom circles or talismans or dream catchers will change that.

 

[mac]

Easily. Medical science uses methodological naturalism to propose cures for sickness. If its predicted cures are worse than consulting an oracle, then consult an oracle. The purpose of science is making useful predictions. That's why we use methodological naturalism. If it stops doing that, then time to move on and find other assumptions that are more useful. I wouldn't hold my breath.


Yep, a good assumption given the progress it's provided. But still an assumption that subsequent facts can rebut.



Religious faith -- faith in other than material causes.

Don't you have to have faith to make an assumption?

 

[head of joaquin]

Don't you have to have faith to make an assumption?

No. Why would you think philosophy is the same as religion?

In a predicate logic argument, I can state, assume X=Y and Y=Z. Therefore X=Z. Do you think that involves faith?

If so you and the OP may be simply playing with semantic slippage. Faith has a broad semantic field, but I assume you want to talk about faith as a religious concept, not as a synonym for assumption. Then the OP makes a tautology, not an argument.

 

[mac]

No. Why would you think philosophy is the same as religion?

When did I say it was the same?

In a predicate logic argument, I can state, assume X=Y and Y=Z. Therefore X=Z. Do you think that involves faith?

If you can't prove it, it does.

If so you and the OP may be simply playing with semantic slippage. Faith has a broad semantic field, but I assume you want to talk about faith as a religious concept, not as a synonym for assumption. Then the OP makes a tautology, not an argument.

The OP (me) didn't make any slippage, semantic or otherwise. I simply posted a link and asked for everyone's thoughts on the article. Your assumptions, which lack proof, have gotten the better of you again.

 

[head of joaquin]

When did I say it was the same?



If you can't prove it, it does.



The OP (me) didn't make any slippage, semantic or otherwise. I simply posted a link and asked for everyone's thoughts on the article. Your assumptions, which lack proof, have gotten the better of you again.

Sure you did. If you define all assumptions as "faith" then your argument is just a truculent tautology, not worth reading.

So I've asked you to explain yourself. You apparently can't. Your argument reduces to a claim that the following are both examples of faith:

1. I have faith that God will wipe away all tears.

2. Assume X=Y.

Needless to say, conflating these two propositions under "faith" is just sloppy thinking. If you can't distinguish these two assertions, and see which one is more like science, then your point is vapid. Give it a try.

 

[ecofarm]

So, is the notion that homosexuality is genetic faith or science? (for example)

Genetic and social factors, what percentage of each? I guess 80/20, to begin estimations. What percentage do you figure?

We have no evidence of orientation being a choice. Everyone I ask says they didn't choose. Have you met someone who chose? I find it difficult to believe that some people would choose to be a discriminated against minority.