Does the Scientific Method require Faith?

RickG

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
It has been stated in another thread that science requires faith. So, what is science? The word science comes from the Latin word "scientia", meaning knowledge. Keeping that in mind, what is a definition of science? Webster's dictionary defines science as[SIZE=-1]:

"knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

Recently, Brittan's Science Council officially defined science as:

[/SIZE]
"Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence."

In performing scientific research the "scientific method" is utilized in an orderly procedure which is described as follows:


  1. Define a question
  2. Gather information and resources (observe)
  3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
  4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
  5. Analyze the data
  6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
  7. Publish results
  8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

overview_scientific_method2.gif



The question I have is, "where in the scientific method is faith required"?

[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
 

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟28,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I am 100% with you Rick. But I will tell you why (I think) a lot of people here (and in many other places) say that "science requires faith".

I am a scientist (and I will not tell you what my science background or credentials are because I know many people here view that as a bad thing), but even as a scientist I cannot understand say for example the intricacies behind the theory of relativity, and how the math behind that is worked out.

Now, I know for a fact that the reason for my lack of understanding is not because relativity is wrong, but because I am not a physicist and simply cannot understand things like that without studying it in great detail. At the same time, I know how the scientific process works, and I know that if there was anything better than relativity, it would be out there, so I accept relativity.

A lot of people here tend to completely dismiss science simply because they do not understand it. So, when I tell a non-biologist that random mutations happen, all I am saying is: "trust me, random mutations happen". And faith is required for him to accept what I am saying. Now the problem is that I can actually demonstrate to them that random mutations happen, but most simply refuse to listen because they have a preconceived idea, and because even trying my hardest, it is hard to explain genetics (especially to a close-minded person) in an internet forum setting.

Don't take me wrong, I am not saying everything I (or any other scientist) says has to be accepted. What I am saying is that you have to understand an idea before you can reject it. And most of the examples used by people here to demonstrate that science requires faith simply are theories or hypotheses that they do not understand and think that scientists are simply asking them to "have faith" and believe in them.
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟148,100.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
The question I have is, "where in the scientific method is faith required"?

I don't know the context in which you ask the question. If by "faith" you're using the dismissive definition often used in these forums, then I would say only that such a view is just a strawman.

If you are asking whether scientists proceed with the use of theories even though not all questions about those theories have been answered (i.e. that science is incomplete), then yes, they use faith.

It is one of my pet peeves that people come away from the American school system thinking of "scientific method" as some well-defined irrefutable thing. It is not. Nothing in this world is "self-evident," and that includes scientific method. The scientific method cannot prove itself to be true, and the "success" argument that people use here has long been dismissed in professional literature. Since the Science Wars most scientists have grown to accept the limitations of science.

As such, what you will find amongst professional societies (such as ISO, ASTM, etc.) is not a definition of "scientific method", which Peirce et. al. failed to rigorously define, but rather language to the effect that scientists should exhaustively document whatever "method" they choose to use, and remain transparent to peer review. That ideal is not achievable, but it's the most reasonable approach one can expect from we finite humans.
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Cause and effect. People do not act without reasons, and even to say they do won't help.

Nobody's going to trouble themselves with science unless they have faith they will somehow profit thereby.

The scoffer dodges so far, have been to
1. Play blind.
2. Refuse the scriptural definition of faith, and instead use their straw faith

I have asked which came first - faith or science? I don't expect I shall be monitoring this thread for more non-responses. One is sufficient.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7614883-17/#post59306277
 
Upvote 0

roach

Newbie
Jul 31, 2011
180
9
✟15,365.00
Faith
Atheist
Speaking on faith is tricky unless people can agree on what faith actually is:

It is the acceptance of propositions to be true and valid, void of any reason or evidence. As soon as there are reasons and evidence, it's not faith; it's a hypothesis, a speculation, an assumption, a theory, etc.

People seem to try and posit that faith (again, as I describe above) is what correlates scientific and religious ideas. They tend to ignore any distinction between degrees of knowing when measured by a common standard of belief.
Religion and science are certainly philosophical in nature: This should be acceptable to everyone. But the similarities end there.

Given the definition of faith and the requirements of scientific method, there is a point of contact. Scientific claims do make assumptions about reality that (thus far) cannot be tested. So I can concede that (subjectively) I have faith in the existence of my own consciousness; that my experiences are real to the degree that I accept my thoughts and feelings as real. I can't test these claims (yet) and still, I must accept them as true if I am to go about doing scientific work.

SO, I know there is a strange inclination in some people to equate the activity of science to that of religion based on this notion of faith, but such discussions are better left to ontological debates. The important distinctions in religion and science are merely disagreements on the definition of faith, not a real, meaningful disagreement on a standard of belief (which is the real issue).
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Speaking on faith is tricky unless people can agree on what faith actually is:

It is the acceptance of propositions to be true and valid, void of any reason or evidence. As soon as there are reasons and evidence, it's not faith; it's a hypothesis, a speculation, an assumption, a theory, etc.
See? Straw faith - not the faith of biblical Christianity.

============================================

Scoffer faith = wishing, believing one can assert & change reality, denial of evidence = blind faith, evofaith

Biblical faith = faith based upon evidence, short of absolute proof

Knowledge = facts, things known to be certain without any doubt whatsoever
 
Upvote 0

roach

Newbie
Jul 31, 2011
180
9
✟15,365.00
Faith
Atheist
See? Straw faith - not the faith of biblical Christianity.

============================================

Scoffer faith = wishing, believing one can assert & change reality, denial of evidence = blind faith, evofaith

Biblical faith = faith based upon evidence, short of absolute proof

Knowledge = facts, things known to be certain without any doubt whatsoever

Why put 'Biblical' or 'Scoffer' or 'Straw' in front of faith? Is it because you acknowledge your conception of faith is NOT universal or understood by 'all mankind'? I'm not talking about anything other than a straight-forward, unambiguous, agreed upon meaning of faith.

Do we really have to go to a dictionary?

"Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing, or a belief that is not based on proof."

So if you want to call 'biblical' faith=faith based on evidence, don't expect people to read your mind and understand how you define words, especially oxymoronic definitions you concoct to suit a particular conversation.

If you want to proceed in a discussion of faith and science, just agree to a single, clear definition of faith. (then you can make up phrases like 'biblical faith' and define those however you like; I really don't care).

Faith is a word; it has a meaning, and more specifically, it has one meaning in this context. Before you start making up words and calling my conception of faith something it's not, think about how incoherent you sound. I'm just going by a dictionary definition of faith; it's your problem if you don't agree with the dictionary, not everyone else's.

SO, good luck with those dictionary editors, I'm sure it's a wonderfully gratifying project; best wishes, buddy!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

roach

Newbie
Jul 31, 2011
180
9
✟15,365.00
Faith
Atheist
After surveying dictionaries, he cherry-picks a definition nearly identical to mine and contrary to his own ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]!! THEYRE THE SAME! (I heard it might be better to encourage, not discourage, the delusional)

"Biblical faith = faith based upon evidence, short of absolute proof"

"Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing,
or a belief that is not based on proof."
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,421
345
✟49,085.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
What non-empirical justification is there for empiricism? I mean if you want to justify empiricism, citing empirical evidence would be circular reasoning.

My view is that empiricism is not actually justified by anything except pain. I imagine that may actually be circular in the sense above, but try and ignore pain if you will. It's impossible.

Hence, it's only the massochist who denies the scientific method.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I don't know the context in which you ask the question. If by "faith" you're using the dismissive definition often used in these forums, then I would say only that such a view is just a strawman.

If you are asking whether scientists proceed with the use of theories even though not all questions about those theories have been answered (i.e. that science is incomplete), then yes, they use faith.

No theory has all questions answered. In science when something is not known it is clearly stated so. However, that is not to be confused with an hypothesis which asks a question about something unknown or speculates the outcome of something testable. All theories contain countless hypothesis.

It is one of my pet peeves that people come away from the American school system thinking of "scientific method" as some well-defined irrefutable thing. It is not. Nothing in this world is "self-evident," and that includes scientific method. The scientific method cannot prove itself to be true, and the "success" argument that people use here has long been dismissed in professional literature. Since the Science Wars most scientists have grown to accept the limitations of science.

The scientific method is only a procedure to follow that best ensures that the investigation will yield valid results. It is easy to misuse it if one chooses to become selectively biased with data. It does happen and it does occasionally get into the peer review literature. However, once published for the greater scientific community to scrutinize, such selective bias is usually exposed and rooted out.

As such, what you will find amongst professional societies (such as ISO, ASTM, etc.) is not a definition of "scientific method", which Peirce et. al. failed to rigorously define, but rather language to the effect that scientists should exhaustively document whatever "method" they choose to use, and remain transparent to peer review. That ideal is not achievable, but it's the most reasonable approach one can expect from we finite humans.

True.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

roach

Newbie
Jul 31, 2011
180
9
✟15,365.00
Faith
Atheist
While I would agree with you on your definition of Biblical faith and on the worst atheist caricature of faith, I would disagree on your definition of knowledge. It's not really divided into three neat categories; in reality, belief exists on a spectrum.

On the one hand, you have outright unreasonable faith. This would be faith that resists clear evidence. As an example of this, imagine a group of people who believe that the ocean is made of blue gelatin. You can show them that it's not, you can prove to them that it's water all you want, but they are still going to believe that the ocean is made of blue gelatin no matter what.

On the other hand, you have absolute knowledge. I exist. I don't know absolutely that you exist, or that this computer exists. For all I know, I could be a brain in a vat, a man with locked-in syndrome, the dream of a colossal mega-computer that killed mankind, or anything else. On some level, however, I exist. That's absolute knowledge, and I'm going to go with Descartes and say that that's all I can absolutely know.

Anywhere between that, you have to have some sort of faith.

I have faith that you exist. That faith is based on evidence, but it falls short of absolute knowledge. The evidence for it, however, rises to the level that it is absolute knowledge for all intents and purposes. I'll call that "practical knowledge". This is the sort of knowledge that we use in day to day life.

On the other hand, very few people would accept that the ocean is made out of gelatin. However, a lot of people are willing to accept things that require a high degree of willful ignorance, so we'll call that "practically blind faith". This is the sort of faith that some (not all, but definitely some) atheists caricature Christianity as being.

Practically everything requires some faith and practically everything requires some evidence. It's not cut and dry.

Faith based upon the use of reason requires a much higher amount of proof than practically blind faith. This sort of faith in Christianity requires the evidence from creation that there is a God, and from Scripture that Jesus is the Messiah. It also requires the evidence of individuals who stated that Jesus rose from the dead. However, those are all things that require faith to accept that they mean what I believe that they mean. You could believe that the Universe was perpetually existent, or that Jesus didn't fulfill Messianic prophecies, or that the Disciples were incorrect in some way. All of those things require a higher degree of faith to accept compared to non-supernatural things that we encounter in day to day life.

The scientific method, on the other hand, also requires faith in the sense that you have to have some trust that reality works in a way which will allow it to function, but it provides immediate physical evidence. While there may be some disagreement over interpretations of that eevidence, there will be general acceptance of something which makes itself readily apparent.

Therefore, saying that the scientific method requires the same type of faith as reasoned belief is incorrect. I would argue that more basic scientific principles approach the level of practical knowledge, and would be outside of any typically used definition of faith.

agree... the contention between science and religion is the value placed upon different types of belief/knowledge.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟148,100.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
No theory has all questions answered. In science when something is not known it is clearly stated so.

That's a bit naive. You don't know what you don't know.

However, once published for the greater scientific community to scrutinize, such selective bias is usually exposed and rooted out.

And here it turns to speculation. You only know about what has been found, not what hasn't been found. It is speculation that all errors will eventually be found.
 
Upvote 0