• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is faith the backbone of Science?

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
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.

"Yeah I understand that."

I don't think you do. All you are doing is playing semantics, swapping in the word "delusion" for the word "reality", your argument is a moot point and changes nothing. If the scientific approach is based on reason in "reality" then it is based on reason in "delusion". It is a rational examination of the available evidence, and you calling that evidence a "delusion" does not change the fact that it is still a rational examination of the available evidence.

"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"

Maybe that is what you do, but it is not what I do. I realize that everything I think I believe is likely wrong in some way and really is just an approximation of "reality".

That is how the scientific method works, it helps us analyze the data, but it does not tell us what is truth, as nothing is ever final in science and everything is up to be rebuked. Truth is final and it cannot be rebuked (people can deny it or not see it but you can't make truth untrue).

What we are doing is creating our best approximation give the available evidence if you want to decide that is the truth then that is up to you. Science is just a methodology for examining the evidence; people are the ones making claims about what that evidence proves.
 

vijeno

Member
Is faith the backbone of Science?
Please

Regards

For arriving at the scientific method (after about a million years of struggle), you need exactly three assumptions:

* The universe exists.
* Logical rules are possible.
* Logical rules can be applied to the universe.

If you want, you can call "belief" in those three premises "faith".

However, it is extremely unlikely that you can come up with any worldview, or alternative method, or really any meaningful sentence, without first assuming those three.

So, as a fun sidenote: In essence, what "presuppositional apologetics" does, is based on fact, only twisted into absolute madness: Yes, there are premises ("presuppositions, assumptions, axioms"), without which we cannot make sense of anything. However, god is not one of those: Even the presuppositional apologist has to FIRST rely on the above three, before she can even talk about god, or about rationality, or about worldviews, or about anything. The rhetorical trick of presups is only to demand this of their opponent, but then deny applying the same demand to themselves.

Of course, the more interesting question is this:

Is logic a matter of faith? You cannot argue your way out of logic without using logic, so you don't actively have to hold a belief for logic to be applied - you simply cannot think without it. Well... you CAN think without it, but it won't make sense... but then again, how do we judge if your thought makes sense? By applying logic... It's an unescapable circularity.
 

vijeno

Member
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.

That depends a bit on whether you're talking theory or practice.

In theory, no, it is not faith: Since solipsism would provide exactly the same experiences as realism, there is precisely no difference except for your hypothesis of what the universe is. In other words, solipsism is exactly the same as realism, only in one case you presuppose that the whole universe IS your consciousness. In the other case, you presuppose that your consciousness is a small part of the real material universe.

In both cases, it's monism.

Now, we might be able to use Occam's razor to say that one of those theories is simpler or more descriptive than the other: If everything happens in your own consiousness, then the question of why you bothered to make us all up is unanswerable. If you are part of a larger universe, then duh, you're just another coincidence, problem solved.

But that is really the only argument, and it is not precisely strong, which is why the problem of solipsism is unsolvable.

But... In practice: Hell yeah I rely upon my senses. It works, *****es. I'm old enough to have other problems. ;-)
 

miodrag

Member
Is faith the backbone of Science?

In a way yes, it is. That is the way things are, regardless how counterintuitive they seem to be. Just like the myth is the backbone of economy. Money is the myth we all accept, although we all know that banknotes does not really worth the amount they carry.


No. Repeatable results, correct predictions based on observations are the backbone.

Science is based on experiment, which is like a recipe everyone can repeat and verify by getting the same results. First, if we repeat an experiment and it works a million times, we have to believe that a million-and-first time it will also work. Because we trust our experience. Which is not perfect. But still we depend on it and hope it will work, since it already served us well. We even have to believe that Sun will rise up again tomorrow. Next, experiment itself relativized the whole science. The double slit experiment showed that the result depends on whether it was observed or not. The outcome depends on the choice of the observer. So the topmost scientific knowledge we ever had, a quantum theory, relativizes the very foundations it sprouted from.

Descartes explained this a long time ago: cogito ergo sum - that is the only truth we can have. We can only prove that we are real, and we can prove that to ourselves only. And that is the starting point in philosophy. Every other knowledge is founded on belief. We have to believe that if I am certainly real, then there may be others, who know the same, and we can get in a relationship and explore further etc. But if one is a radical skeptic, refusing to accept even that, then no other knowledge is possible except cogito ergo sum. Radical skeptic can know nothing else. Faith is the backbone of all other knowledge.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate

With superstition, you accept a premise as default truth first, look for anything that can possibly be interpreted to support it, and disregard the rest,

With faith, we acknowledge our beliefs as such from the get go, allowing ourselves to follow the evidence where it leads
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
In a way yes, it is. That is the way things are, regardless how counterintuitive they seem to be. Just like the myth is the backbone of economy. Money is the myth we all accept, although we all know that banknotes does not really worth the amount they carry.
It's not the same. Although conspiracy theorists assert otherwise science isn't based on tradition and agreement of those on power. Ohm's law and atomic theory for example.

Science is based on experiment, which is like a recipe everyone can repeat and verify by getting the same results. First, if we repeat an experiment and it works a million times, we have to believe that a million-and-first time it will also work. Because we trust our experience. Which is not perfect.
What if someone told you that the sun wouldn't rise tomorrow but it would keep on the opposite side of the earth, or start moving from south to north? If it happened and for no known cause, if we survived we would have to expand our knowledge.

But still we depend on it and hope it will work, since it already served us well.
At this point in many areas it's as much hope as hoping we can walk if we get up from our chair (assuming our lower body works normally).

The outcome depends on the choice of the observer. So the topmost scientific knowledge we ever had, a quantum theory, relativizes the very foundations it sprouted from.
That is a misunderstanding. It doesn't matter if the observer has beliefs. Imagine instead using laser penetration imaging to observe something that slightly heats up particles, or better yet tagging a bird by putting a camera on it's head with some weight on it. Will the bird behave the same? It doesn't matter who is the observer here or if there is 1 or 100 000 people watching the bird go about it's business.

Descartes explained this a long time ago: cogito ergo sum - that is the only truth we can have.
Meditation disproves this in my opinion. Because we exist "more" when we are in meditation while our thinking isn't as active.

We can only prove that we are real, and we can prove that to ourselves only. And that is the starting point in philosophy. Every other knowledge is founded on belief. We have to believe that if I am certainly real, then there may be others, who know the same, and we can get in a relationship and explore further etc. But if one is a radical skeptic, refusing to accept even that, then no other knowledge is possible except cogito ergo sum. Radical skeptic can know nothing else. Faith is the backbone of all other knowledge.
We can think that, but most of us are sure other minds exist because of other people's ability to surprise us and based on other observations.
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
Science is man's endeavor to understand the world around him! It is a process of study that sometimes takes him in the right direction, and other times in the wrong direction! Science is hampered by the frail nature of man and his limitations, and huge egos that get in the way! However science has definitely done amazing things for mankind and when wielded correctly is a wonderful thing! You will find those who come to correct conclusions are able to set aside bias, not be swayed by mob thinking, and who are able to resist the peer pressure of other scientists who may be wrong! If you can remove the dogma from science, we would be further ahead than we are! If you could remove the idea that we are the generation that has "arrived", we could see more clearly! So in answer to your question, yes a lot of science is based on faith! Some is faith based on conjecture, that is belief with little evidence, and some is faith based on deserved trust! Being able to see the difference is important
 

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
With superstition, you accept a premise as default truth first, look for anything that can possibly be interpreted to support it, and disregard the rest,

With faith, we acknowledge our beliefs as such from the get go, allowing ourselves to follow the evidence where it leads

You obviously have no clue how science works.
 

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
In a way yes, it is. That is the way things are, regardless how counterintuitive they seem to be. Just like the myth is the backbone of economy. Money is the myth we all accept, although we all know that banknotes does not really worth the amount they carry.




Science is based on experiment, which is like a recipe everyone can repeat and verify by getting the same results. First, if we repeat an experiment and it works a million times, we have to believe that a million-and-first time it will also work. Because we trust our experience. Which is not perfect. But still we depend on it and hope it will work, since it already served us well. We even have to believe that Sun will rise up again tomorrow. Next, experiment itself relativized the whole science. The double slit experiment showed that the result depends on whether it was observed or not. The outcome depends on the choice of the observer. So the topmost scientific knowledge we ever had, a quantum theory, relativizes the very foundations it sprouted from.

Descartes explained this a long time ago: cogito ergo sum - that is the only truth we can have. We can only prove that we are real, and we can prove that to ourselves only. And that is the starting point in philosophy. Every other knowledge is founded on belief. We have to believe that if I am certainly real, then there may be others, who know the same, and we can get in a relationship and explore further etc. But if one is a radical skeptic, refusing to accept even that, then no other knowledge is possible except cogito ergo sum. Radical skeptic can know nothing else. Faith is the backbone of all other knowledge.

"Science is based on experiment"

Then how do you explain observational studies?

Science is not based on experiment. Experimentation is a method in science used to explore causes and effect and one of the two types of commonly practiced studies in science. There are experimental studies and there are observational studies and science is not based on either, as science is the methodology. The conclusion people make may be based on these studies but the studies themselves are just an examination of the evidence.
 
Last edited:

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
You obviously have no clue how science works.

To let you understand Jeremiah

We all know and love the method, the practical application of which, suffers from our subjectivity- the difficultly in separating our beliefs from the method. We all believe in something.

Faith allows us to recognize our beliefs as such, how can a person separate a belief, which he does not acknowledge having?

e.g.

faith V dogma

Lemaitre V Hoyle

science v atheism
 

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
To let you understand Jeremiah

We all know and love the method, the practical application of which, suffers from our subjectivity- the difficultly in separating our beliefs from the method. We all believe in something.

Faith allows us to recognize our beliefs as such, how can a person separate a belief, which he does not acknowledge having?

e.g.

faith V dogma

Lemaitre V Hoyle

science v atheism

I have found that while a lot of people think they understand the scientific method, few actually do. Probably because you actually have to learn it to a greater degree then what they typically teach in high-school.

This is what you said:

With superstition, you accept a premise as default truth first, look for anything that can possibly be interpreted to support it, and disregard the rest,

Truth is something philosophers and theologians look for, which is why I think philosophy is an important study. In science however, we are looking for scientifically significant results and then it is up to people to decide if your results approximates truth reliability. Science can't tell you what the truth it, it call only help you understand the evidence better, truth is up to you. In short, you never assume you are looking for truth in the practice of the methodology.

"look for anything that can possibly be interpreted to support it, and disregard the rest,"

This is what we would call data snooping an it is considered non-scientific and throwing away data just because you don't think it supports your hypothesis is data tampering, which is a super big time no no.

You can use data snooping to generate a hypothesis, but then you need a separate study for that hypothesis. You can not use data that generated the hypothesis to test that hypothesis.

In science you create your hypothesis first than you gather your data and you certainly do not disregard anything that does not support your hypothesis. The data are the data and you must take them as they are, and if you ever throw out data you better have a very good reason for doing so, and that reason better be written down in detail.

So you see you don't really understand it.
 
At a philosophical level I might agree that faith is the backbone of science...

For example, scientists value: logic and reason and evidence and discovery. The moral relativist would say that there is no reason why we should value those things. For scientists it just "feels right" to value those things. But ultimately, those values are subjective. (They're my values too, fwiw, I simply acknowledge that it's a bit arbitrary for me to have them.)
Incorrect. Those things are not valued arbitrarily, those things are valued because they get real world results. If blind faith could somehow yeild Discovery and technology, it too would be among those things.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
I have found that while a lot of people think they understand the scientific method, few actually do. Probably because you actually have to learn it to a greater degree then what they typically teach in high-school.

This is what you said:



Truth is something philosophers and theologians look for, which is why I think philosophy is an important study. In science however, we are looking for scientifically significant results and then it is up to people to decide if your results approximates truth reliability. Science can't tell you what the truth it, it call only help you understand the evidence better, truth is up to you. In short, you never assume you are looking for truth in the practice of the methodology.

"look for anything that can possibly be interpreted to support it, and disregard the rest,"

This is what we would call data snooping an it is considered non-scientific and throwing away data just because you don't think it supports your hypothesis is data tampering, which is a super big time no no.

You can use data snooping to generate a hypothesis, but then you need a separate study for that hypothesis. You can not use data that generated the hypothesis to test that hypothesis.

In science you create your hypothesis first than you gather your data and you certainly do not disregard anything that does not support your hypothesis. The data are the data and you must take them as they are, and if you ever throw out data you better have a very good reason for doing so, and that reason better be written down in detail.

So you see you don't really understand it.

I think then we very much agree on the method as an ideal- a method- not a conclusion, and so that acknowledging 'faith' in any conclusion should ideally be a backbone of science- yes?

But I'm referring to the less than ideal reality- most things with the shiny label 'science' slapped on, are the furthest thing from our ideal- where sadly today, expressing any interest in scrutinizing claimed conclusions, renders someone a 'denier of truth'
 
Top