- Jose Luis Soto Vázquez
- A Corunha
- Spain
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Do scientists act by faith?
Some time ago, i read an article written by Paul davies, and i get surprised, because he said that faith is closer to science than we think.
When someone asks you what makes a sciencist , or what is "Science", normally you can answer that a scientist tries to see reality and asks himself questions about "What happens here?" or "how can this happen?", and then scientist create an hypothesis and accepts it or not according to the results of their studies.
However, What are the basis of science? I want to say, the reality that we see, that we feel...is the true reality? Can science prove anything with certainty without any exception at 100%? Why the universe had been created so that we can demonstrate and describe things that we see with a logical reasoning? It could be that the reality that we see is false and scientists also believe and act by faith. I have discussed that with one friend and i got hurt because he said to me: oh, you
believe in science, you are a great believer!!...
Paul Lillebo
Science deals with probabilities, and seeks to find explanations to physical phenomena that are LIKELY to be true. In some types of scientific investigations a scientist can assign a probability of correctness to a conclusion (typically 95-99% is desired), based on the strength of sampling, but in many scientific investigations the data aren't sufficient to allow calculation of probability. In such cases useful suggestions toward a conclusion can be made, but a conclusion with a known likelihood of being correct must await further data.
It's also an important point that a scientist designing an experiment to test a hypothesis always begins by assuming the hypothesis wrong, even when it's his/her own. Only if observations are explained uniquely by the hypothesis being tested (i.e., not by any other available hypothesis) with a probability of 95-99% will the hypothesis be considered tentatively confirmed. But always only tentatively. Even at 99% certainty there's always that other 1%.
Julian Blanco 30+
I think you should take a philosophy course, that can help…
I’ll try to answer your comment here with few words.
First, science is a method, not a dogma, and theories are revised systematically in the face of new evidence.
We use the inference to the best explanation logic, let me give you an example:
Explanation 1: Disease is caused by demons
Explanation 2: disease is caused by germs
Those are two explanations, the question is which is the BEST explanation? Which can has more predictive power? Etc (answer is so obvious that I will not comment)
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/best_explanation.html
I don’t know quantum mechanics, but using this logic (inference to the BEST explanation) I’m inclined to believe that to be the best explanation (better than any religion), if a new theory comes and explains reality better I will align with that one. This is obvious to me at least. Does that sound like faith to you?
To your second point about idealism, if all the information you get from your senses is false, then…, I will not get into that argument, I will only make one comment:
Do you honestly think that the world you interact with is fake? Does it feel fake to you? You think you live in some kind of “Matrix”? you think that when you take a plane you are actually not flying and the plane was not create by a mix of science and technology? What requires more “faith”, to believe in want you see and touch or to believe that there something else different from what you see and touch (something that no one can prove and depending on who you talk to is completely different)? Why do you use vaccines when you can use prayers?...
Hope it helps
Regards!
JB
Christophe Cop 500+
Please watch (or tell them to watch) this for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXh9RQCvxmg
Or any other talk that explains science...
Maybe Sam Harris' one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0tRXk&feature=player_embedded
Science is no belief, it is a method to reduce uncertainty about our understanding of reality.
Nothing is knowable at 100% certainty (though some things get awfully close)
Gerald O'brian 50+
Random Chance 30+
They may develop building theory based on reason and sound principles, testing and experimentation.
Next, they may build a bridge based on what they've learned, what they know
and what they've proven.
But they cross that bridge in faith that it will remain upright.
Science is both open and closed simultaneously as far as I can see. Is this even possible?
Research, testing, observing and recording, always with the open mind.
But that mind to some degree is closed, meaning it doubts, doesn't believe
or doesn't accept until it feels or has proven that it has proven or dis-proven
some hypothesis or claim.
They then have faith in what they know, what they have proven.
One problem exists which is the same for science and those of 'faith' or religion, I suppose.
Neither can prove or disprove the same thing.
Our conscious experiences and the reality of them or the truth of them.
Neither can halve cells that heal wounds of the body, and continue halving them until nothing is left,
and point and say, with proof, "there, that is intelligence. That is how it knows how to heal. There, that
is power, That is how it heals. There, that is love. That is what healing is."
But both may point at that nothingness and say, "it works. It really does!"
And both have faith in it, and virtually all who have ever lived, are living and will live,
had, have and will have, the conscious experience of the scratch. Everyone is the
empirical evidence of "it" doing what "it" does, and no one can see it, prove it, or dis-prove it,
but only rely (have faith) on it.
I am a faitheist. I believe in what I know. But I have had experiences I cannot prove and others
cannot dis-prove. I know they are real as I experienced them myself. I understand them and yet,
part of them remains a mystery.
Tim blackburn 30+
Sablcious Faux
The thing that separates science from religion is that the former is open to ALL possibilities, is there to be scrutinized (and in fact subsists upon this) and always strives to to better understand. As distinct from religion, that is a constant; and as such, is always in conflict with human evolution and our innate desire to understand.
Although science has its own 'laws', they are not set in stone and are there to be assayed and debunked if empirically doable (see: recent challenge to Einstein's theory on the speed of light). Science has no gospels.
edward long 100+
Tachyons and Cherenkov Radiation do not represent a challenge to Einstein, quite the contrary.
Sablcious Faux
I mean, it's even been touted as a discovery to challenge Einstein's theorems...!
Signed,
Confused
edward long 100+
Gerald O'brian 50+
edward long 100+
Gerald O'brian 50+
It'll get a debate going and just might sharpen my understanding of faith, of reason, and of Edward Long's philosophy.
So yeah, annything consistent with Reason cannot possibly be Faith.
edward long 100+
Accepting as truth that which cannot be verified by the scientific method.
Gerald O'brian 50+
A rationnal way of creating hard-to-vary explanations through guesswork and criticism.
edward long 100+
Gerald O'brian 50+
It is a creative process, it is free from any dogmatic authority and it's purpose is the constant replacement of misconceptions with less flawed misconceptions.
But ok, let's use the Oxford definition and get to work on our debate.
edward long 100+