Is faith the backbone of Science?

[Darkstorn]

Does repeated "experimentation and observation" make it immune from the errors or blunders?

Of course not. Just like NOT doing those things won't make you immune either.

After how many experimentation the result understood/interpreted will be considered 100% correct?

I'm going to say never. By definition, using the scientific method, we can NEVER know anything to a 100% certainty. But they'll still probably know a lot more than the people who try to argue them with guesswork.

Has it ever happened that the result understood to be correct was later found to be erroneous?

ALL the time. I think it's still a mistake on your part for thinking that scientists go around thinking that they are 100% infallible and correct in all things. That's not the point of science.

The word "repeated" shows that doubt was there in the very first place, and it was only out of faith that the exercise was continued. Science is, therefore, the fruit of faith.

Rofl. You're talking about the individual motivations of people doing experiments here... A subjective assessment about subjective assessments.

But even then, repeating something DOES NOT show doubt in itself, you just think it does. Your logic is a bit weak there. But of course there's probably doubt a lot, too. I'm quite confident that many experiments have been performed specifically FROM doubt: As in, when trying to falsify something, and it turns out to be "correct" instead...

You then assume it requires faith, but i can counter you by saying that it doesn't require faith at all. No further explanation needed.

It is not a "battle" with faith, rather it is battle with doubt. Human conscience reject doubt, faith generates peace and progress .

That doesn't sound like a very factual or solid statement with evidence behind it at all. Do i need to spell it out aloud? Ok: You are mistaking your subjective assessment for an objective fact. Firstly, you haven't shown any doubt in the first place...

So, it is faith and faith alone in the "experimentation and observation" that science, the scientists and the people dealing in science that science "works" and continues its endeavors. Please
Right? Please

Nope.

I still think it's funny you somehow think that science is some actual physical thing. Science works simply because as a philosophy, it's made to work inside its own context, like math for example. Math works, right?

Right? Please.

Regards

Double nope.

TLDR: I still think it's a massive leap of faith to consider science faith based.

 

[james bond]

Most people do not know what science is. It is a state of knowing instead of ignorance and misunderstanding. It is usually categorized and systemetized by scientists to knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method. What it leads to is great disagreement among different scientific thinkers and thinkers and this is what leads us to the real knowledge. Thus, there is no proof of finality in science. Only hypotheses, theories, philosophies and the like which lead us to a "state of knowlege."

 

[james bond]

Is faith the backbone of Science?
Please

Regards

Faith is huge for creationists and evolutionists.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nope.

/thread

This.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Faith is huge for creationists and evolutionists.

What, pray tell, is an "evolutionist"? Is that some sort of Strawman View of biological scientists?

Evolution requires absolutely zero faith-- indeed, faith can get in the way of deeper inquiry.

You either understand evolution? Or you don't. No faith is ever needed.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I guess it is based in faith in the sense that we have to have faith that that which we observe is true and not a delusion.

Then I guess you have to ask yourself a slightly deeper question: if "everything we observe" is a delusion -- how is that we all share the same delusion during observation? If you follow where that question leads you, you will wind up understanding that either there is some reality at some level, that our shared senses can agree upon, or there is complete and utter chaos, and you have literally zero hope of ever understanding anything.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Hmm. I think some of that might have to do with the rise of the internet. Of course there are always going to be religious people against learning science (and even non religious people.) But there does seem to be this idea that because one can Google something, an expertise opinion is not more valid than that one Google search. I see it often with my peers, even though they're not dumb. They just tend to be more skeptical of expertise, which is fine to an extent. But when they just assume that because the information is so readily available they can become just as much an expert, well, yeah it becomes kind of a concern.

With regards to the OP, uhh, no. You fail science. Try again.

You know, the hard part for all of us is this: that humans are invested emotionally (not rationally) in not having their beliefs contradicted.

It is a fact -- and a very hard one -- that belief in climate change (for example) is deepened in liberals as their level of education increases, while disbelief in conservatives is deepened as their education level increases! This is called "motivated cognition," and it's the very devil in our midst. We are emotionally motivated to reject anything that threatens our core beliefs or our worldview.

How to get out of that? Learn to stop living with cognitive dissonance, develop a skeptical attitude to "facts" that appear to contradict our beliefs -- but more importantly, learn to assess your beliefs when they appear to contradict the evidence before you.

In other words, "know thyself." And part of "thyself" is a very strong urge not to hear what you don't what to hear. When you remember that, you have a small chance of overcoming it, because it is a tremendous barrier to actual knowledge.

 

[leibowde84]

Does repeated "experimentation and observation" make it immune from the errors or blunders?

Of course not. It merely removes faith by testing a hypothesis over and over until it is adequately confirmed and graduates to become a "scientific theory" (I put this specific term in quotes because a "scientific theory" is not merely a "theory" that is scientific in nature; it is much more demonstrable than a mere hypothesis/theory ... an example would be the "theory of gravity").

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

But, even scientific theories are tested repeatedly by scientists trying to prove them wrong. They are improved upon or sometimes altogether changed according to the newfound evidence.

After how many experimentation the result understood/interpreted will be considered 100% correct?

Science does not deal with 100% or absolutes. No scientific theory is considered to be absolutely correct without any doubt. But, they are the closest we can get to that point. Scientists are constantly skeptical, which is why experimentations are repeated so many times before a hypothesis even is considered a "scientific theory".

Has it ever happened that the result understood to be correct was later found to be erroneous?

Of course. That is the basis of scientific endeavors. Scientists constantly check the work of their predecessors in order to test their work/theories.

The word "repeated" shows that doubt was there in the very first place, and it was only out of faith that the exercise was continued. Science is, therefore, the fruit of faith.

No, that is an incorrect assumption. They are repeated because they don't work on faith. They can't just develop a hypothesis and test it once. They aren't content with that, as it would be faith. Instead, they test a hypothesis many times, over and over to make sure that the results are consistent with their hypothesis.

It is not a "battle" with faith, rather it is battle with doubt. Human conscience reject doubt, faith generates peace and progress .

This is just patently false. Faith, religious faith especially, has caused an incredible amount of violence, pain, discrimination, etc. Science, itself, has not caused any harm whatsoever. You might argue that the products of science, as in discoveries like nuclear fission and what not, can be destructive, but that is not the fault of the scientific process.

So, it is faith and faith alone in the "experimentation and observation" that science, the scientists and the people dealing in science that science "works" and continues its endeavors. Please
Right?

Wrong again. Experimentation and observation is an endeavor to find truth without mere faith. You develop a hypothesis that makes sense, which does use faith, but then you repeatedly test that hypothesis with experimentation and observation so that faith is no longer necessary.

In other words, you believe your theory to be accurate based on demonstrable evidence, not mere faith.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well how do I know that my observation of others and their experiences is also not a deception.
Why not solipsism.

Why not, indeed? But just remember, once you slide into real solipsism, there's not even any point in trying to have this dialogue -- and if you continue to do it, you're not a solipsist, you're just pretending, like all those silly "quantum spiritualists." When nothing means anything, nothing is worth thinking about, and it's basically over.

 

[Bird123]

Is faith the backbone of Science?
Please

Regards

Beliefs are important. Beliefs are a patch that covers the gap of the missing pieces of fact. Without beliefs, we would lock up just like my old computer when all the facts were not known.

Belief is much a part of science as well. Rather than blindly accept beliefs, science will work to discover if that belief is really a true fact. Science is really good because they know all beliefs are not facts and science corrects their errors.

Many religions teach people to value beliefs above all else. Maybe that is what some do when they do not have the true facts. As I see it, facts are the important things. I'll keep beliefs around to point the direction by which I can work at discovering the facts, but I will never be satisfied with mere beliefs. I will always be one who must Know rather than merely believe.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That's not true.

While I'm not a solipsist, one could try to have the dialogue out of enjoyment or out of boredom while also thinking outsiders aren't real.

Well, the "outsider who is not real" can't actually be an outsider -- since he's not real.

 

[SomeRandom]

You know, the hard part for all of us is this: that humans are invested emotionally (not rationally) in not having their beliefs contradicted.

It is a fact -- and a very hard one -- that belief in climate change (for example) is deepened in liberals as their level of education increases, while disbelief in conservatives is deepened as their education level increases! This is called "motivated cognition," and it's the very devil in our midst. We are emotionally motivated to reject anything that threatens our core beliefs or our worldview.

How to get out of that? Learn to stop living with cognitive dissonance, develop a skeptical attitude to "facts" that appear to contradict our beliefs -- but more importantly, learn to assess your beliefs when they appear to contradict the evidence before you.

In other words, "know thyself." And part of "thyself" is a very strong urge not to hear what you don't what to hear. When you remember that, you have a small chance of overcoming it, because it is a tremendous barrier to actual knowledge.

Hmm, good advice.

 

[Fool]

Is faith the backbone of Science?
Please

Regards

yes, belief is the springboard of knowledge. without belief, there is no hypothesis from which to question/test for reality.


however, without questioning, or being skeptical/doubting, is like a tree that bears no fruit.

 

[fi11222]

Is faith the backbone of Science?

Yes.

And yet I am an Atheist. So what do I mean exactly?

I do not mean faith in general but specifically the "salvation by Faith alone" of Luther, Calvin and their predecessors down to the apostle Paul and the rest of the New Testament.

This is the secret of why the West became so powerful and overtook all the other human civilizations in the XVIth-XVIIth centuries. I will not enter into details here. Let us just say that the mental gymnastics that "salvation by Faith alone" forces you to do has very beneficial side-effects for social life. In particular, it promotes a higher level of a-priori trust than was the case otherwise. As a result, modernity ensues: capitalism, banking, investment and, yes, science.

Science rests on the trust that exists between scientists. Before the XVIIth centuries, "scientists" were in fact sorcerers (or astrologers, etc.) and they could not be trusted (see e.g. John Dee). They were at the same time boastful of their supposed "powers" and also secretive about their actual methods and results. In such an atmosphere of mistrust, it was impossible to check any experiment or even to be aware of what each "scientist" was doing. As a result, it is not a suprise that science never went very far both in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. It is only after the Reformation that the general level of honesty among scientists became high enough to allow what we call science to develop.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I guess it is based in faith in the sense that we have to have faith that that which we observe is true and not a delusion.

But I think what the Scotsman says stands.

What difference would any of that make? Let's pretend for a moment everything is a delusion. What then? How does that validate faith? The scientific method is still the most practical and rational approach. You don't accept it on faith, you accept it because it is the most reasonable option.

The problem with solipsism is that it does not change anything at all, reality is still reality and empirical evidence is still the best lead we have.

 

[Underhill]

Is faith the backbone of Science?
Please

Regards

No.

Understanding that you don't know or could be wrong, and the desire to figure it out, is the backbone of science.

 

[Underhill]

"repeated experimentation and observation to battle any use of faith."

1. Does repeated "experimentation and observation" make it immune from the errors or blunders?

Immune? No, but it vastly reduces the chance. Especially when those are carried out by a variety of scientist.

1. After how many experimentation the result understood/interpreted will be considered 100% correct?

22

Of course there is no set number. It depends on the complexity and difficulty of testing. For example, the fundamentals of gravity are easily tested. Constructional Law, for another example, took quite a bit longer to prove because it is complex and affects our world at a variety of levels.

1. Has it ever happened that the result understood to be correct was later found to be erroneous?

It happens. Not usually with a law, but with strongly believed hypothesis. But that simply means science and the scientific method is working. Science is a search for knowledge. It isn't THE answer.

1. The word "repeated" shows that doubt was there in the very first place, and it was only out of faith that the exercise was continued. Science is, therefore, the fruit of faith.

That makes no sense. Doubt is not the right word. Science is about questioning everything, testing everything. You may think you have the answer, but any faith is a personal thing and is irrelevant and unrelated to the science of the process.

1. It is not a "battle" with faith, rather it is battle with doubt. Human conscience reject doubt, faith generates peace and progress .

So, it is faith and faith alone in the "experimentation and observation" that science, the scientists and the people dealing in science that science "works" and continues its endeavors. Please
Right? Please

Sorry but no. You are confusing a scientists human failings with science. An individual can believe something to be true. But science is not involved in that. Science is really about the search, the process, and not any belief in anything.

Your formatting is strange. Did you copy this list from somewhere?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yeah I understand that.

My point is we base our lives under the assumption that what we perceive is real and that is putting faith in something to some extent.

The problem, here-- is that the word "faith" covers a very large swath of human behaviors.

There is a very fine nuance between, say, faith in 'chairs' (or chair-like objects) and faith in Garden Gnomes.

For the former, we have a mix of experiences; we observe people sitting on chairs, we have photos/paintings of chairs being used, and we have personally sat upon chairs.

But make no mistake: sitting upon a chair is an exercise of faith: Until you actually sit on the chair in question, you truly do not know if it will hold your weight, or collapse... or some other undesired result. So it's a kind of faith-- but one based on lots of experience. And more to the point? The consequences are just not that dire either way-- even the worst: collapse -- isn't all that bad. (obviously, this ignores the possibility that the chair is actually a bomb--but unless you are Famous, that one is pretty safe to ignore too)

But look at faith in Garden Gnomes: do you have experience of these, directly? If not, then why do you think they are real? Who said, and what qualifies them as Gnome Experts? Do they have proof of Gnome Sightings? If not, why not? And so on.

 

[David T]

Is faith the backbone of Science?
Please

Regards

Experience is. How experience is interpreted can like religion be way off in fruitloop land.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Is faith the backbone of Science?
Please

Regards

Reason and faith (emotions) are a necessary pair. Reason must guide faith, while faith is the motivation to exercise reason. Without reason at the controls of a ship, it will run off course and onto the rocks. And without faith as the motive power, the ship will be dead in the water. Reason feeds on knowledge, while faith consumes desire, and their ports of call are the aspects of Truth--knowledge, justice, love and beauty.