Faith in science?

[Brian2]

No it does not.

Maybe it does not. But it seems to reflect a faith in the philosophy of science about the possibility of a dualism at play.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Our physical existence that can be falsified by 'objective verifiable evidence.'

That you believe in that, is not a part of our physical existence, because it is a mental cognitive abstract and not physical.

 

[Brian2]

Not necessarily, but as far as defining the 'Natural World' it works.

Where is the line between the natural world and any other? If the assumption is that only the natural world exists then any evidence for any other can easily be overlooked.

 

[Brian2]

I suppose one can say we have evidence of the explanatory power of the the scientific method, which proceeds on the basis of methodological naturalism, in making sense of the physical world. But it is clearly true that methodological naturalism is an axiomatic principle, employed before any evidence-gathering commences, and then justified retrospectively by the successes that science has had.

Do you think that science may change and allow for the unnatural after years with not success in finding the natural solution to certain problems?

 

[exchemist]

Do you think that science may change and allow for the unnatural after years with not success in finding the natural solution to certain problems?

No. Not a chance. The whole key to science's success, since its birth after the Renaissance, is insistence on looking for natural explanations. Years without success are neither here nor there. Science can research and wait for the pieces to come together. It never moves smoothly, but always in fits and starts.

But tell me, do you have any examples in mind? It seems to me there are fairly few fields in which there have been no successes in the last half century or so.

 

[WalterTrull]

I don't see how this answered the question.
I'm also not seeing a practical example. Which I asked specifically for extra clarity.

I'm afraid our perceptions are disparate enough that translations are very difficult. My view is that I answered what was asked. I will try to improve my translation skills. For the time being, I'm sorry that I am unable to assuage.

 

[Brian2]

No, and 'faith' does not apply to the sciences involved with consciousness, nor any other science..

If only a naturalistic answer can be given by science to the question of consciousness then that shows faith in naturalism or if you like, lack of faith in the possible spiritual basis of consciousness.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If only a naturalistic answer can be given by science to the question of consciousness then that shows faith in naturalism or if you like, lack of faith in the possible spiritual basis of consciousness.

Consider the 3rd possibility: We can't explain it and leave it at that.

 

[Brian2]

Again, I didn't make an argument and I haven't reached any conclusions from ignorance or otherwise. I asked a question.

If you read through the OP you'll get to the point where I state that I'm confident that science will solve the problem of consciousness. I'm asking whether my confidence is akin to faith.

It seems to me to be akin to faith to me, but not in science so much as in the naturalism that science labours under.

 

[Brian2]

Or we simply start at different positions and come at it from different angles.
Someone who's absolutely convinced that "souls" exist and that they are independent of the human brain, will obviously look at "consciousness" in very different ways compared to someone who doesn't believe such "souls" exist.

Some of us see spirit as connected to our body and the thing that gives our body the ability to experience, be conscious in more than just a machine way of being conscious.
If science dismisses this possibility then any answers it comes up with about consciousness could be considered biased.

Well, consider the picture above.
Would your machine see a yellow flower, or a white one with a red center?

Why would a machine see anything in a conscious way?

 

[Brian2]

It's not without evidence.
Science has a large and impressive track record of successfully solving such problems.
It's a tool of which the purpose is exactly that: solving such problems.

It has not got a track record of solving problems which directly impinge on the spiritual realm nor of even recognising such problems or the spiritual realm as possible.
All science can do it try and see what it comes up with, even if any answer would be biased and be an educated guess of naturalism.

 

[Brian2]

Consider the 3rd possibility: We can't explain it and leave it at that.

That would be better than coming up with a naturalistic answer that is biased and labelling it as the truth for the world to believe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That would be better than coming up with a naturalistic answer that is biased and labelling it as the truth for the world to believe.

That are no truth for the world in practice. There are different beliefs, that works. You have yours and they work for you. I have other beliefs and they work for me.
As long as you don't claim truth over me or I do that for you, we can try to work something out.

 

[Brian2]

No. Not a chance. The whole key to science's success, since its birth after the Renaissance, is insistence on looking for natural explanations. Years without success are neither here nor there. Science can research and wait for the pieces to come together. It never moves smoothly, but always in fits and starts.

But tell me, do you have any examples in mind? It seems to me there are fairly few fields in which there have been no successes in the last half century or so.

I did not have anything in mind but imo there are areas of science (to do with what has happened in the past and in which 'success' has been achieved) which appear to me to be educated guesses based on the naturalistic methodology and so it becomes questionable as to whether the answers arrived at are real science, as in real knowledge. What I am talking about is in other areas which seem to encroach into the religious realm. Abiogenesis, beginnings of the universe, mechanisms of evolution.

 

[Brian2]

That are no truth for the world in practice. There are different beliefs, that works. You have yours and they work for you. I have other beliefs and they work for me.
As long as you don't claim truth over me or I do that for you, we can try to work something out.

I'll always say my truth is true for everyone because it is true, but we still can try to work something out.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It has not got a track record of solving problems which directly impinge on the spiritual realm

Except that it has, in principle at least.
Just about every big thing that was tackled by science was previously "claimed" by religion.

Having said that, the very notion is nonsensical because in reality the "spiritual realm" is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist. The "spiritual realm" is a religious concept, meaningless in context of scientific inquiry.

nor of even recognising such problems or the spiritual realm as possible.

Exactly. Religiously "declaring" it to be "from the spiritual realm" is scientifically meaningless.

All science can do it try and see what it comes up with, even if any answer would be biased and be an educated guess of naturalism.

Biased towards evidence.
Just about everything that science tackled was once attributed to gods and the "spiritual realm".
Why would this be any different?

The religious may "declare" it to be different, just like they "declared" so many things in the past.
Why should science care?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That would be better than coming up with a naturalistic answer that is biased and labelling it as the truth for the world to believe.

"biased" towards evidence.

You say that like you think it's a bad thing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That are no truth for the world in practice. There are different beliefs, that works. You have yours and they work for you. I have other beliefs and they work for me.
As long as you don't claim truth over me or I do that for you, we can try to work something out.

Such silly statements imply that all beliefs are of "equal value". Surely you don't even believe that yourself.

Would say that the "belief" that you will not survive jumping from a high, fast flying plane without a chute is "of equal value" as believing you would be able to land on both feet completely unharmed and walk away?

Would you say that one of these beliefs would be wrong?
Or would you repeat the obvious nonsense that "one belief works for you and the other works for me"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I did not have anything in mind but imo there are areas of science (to do with what has happened in the past and in which 'success' has been achieved) which appear to me to be educated guesses based on the naturalistic methodology and so it becomes questionable as to whether the answers arrived at are real science, as in real knowledge. What I am talking about is in other areas which seem to encroach into the religious realm. Abiogenesis, beginnings of the universe, mechanisms of evolution.

I submit that the ONLY reason you say this things, is the bolded part. Because you have religious beliefs that overlap into these scientific explanations and which aren't all that compatible with the scientific explanation.

But let's be serious here... the "naturalistic methodology" behind a theory like evolution is the exact same methodology as the one that resulted in theories like plate tectonics, relativity, germs, atoms, etc etc etc etc.


So I submit that your potential objection here is not at all against the methodology (because then you would also have a problem with pretty much ALL theories of the natural sciences), but rather your potential objection to certain specific theories , is rather that you have a priori faith based religious beliefs that don't play nice with those specific evidence based scientific theories.

There is thus nothing wrong with the science. The problem, is incompatible religious beliefs.
When mere beliefs don't match the evidence of reality, it's not reality that is incorrect.

 

[shunyadragon]

If only a naturalistic answer can be given by science to the question of consciousness then that shows faith in naturalism or if you like, lack of faith in the possible spiritual basis of consciousness.

Again a misuse of the definition of faith as clearly previously described. Methodological Naturalism is limited by definition to the physical nature of our physical existence based on 'objective verifiable existence. Methodological Naturalism by definition is neutral to whether there is a spiritual basis of consciousness. Scientists believe in a wide range of theological and philosophical beliefs based on 'faith or lack of 'faith,' but they support Methodological Naturalism based on the 'objective verifiable evidence' concerning the physical nature of our existence.

Previously I defined two ways faith is used in the English language, and neither as anything to do with science. The common layman everyday use of faith in the practical things in life such as: 'I have faith that the airplane is safe." and the theological/philosophical definition.

https://www.google.com/search?q=fai....69i57j0l7.7508j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. "this restores one's faith in politicians"
2. confidence as in "confidence in the staff." credence and reliance: "reliance on pesticides"
3. Theological definition of faith

1. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
2. "bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"