Does the Scientific Method require Faith?

[Jazer]

I accept gravity (and evolution)

Do you accept Newton or Einstein's theory of gravity?
Do you accept Darwinism, Neo Darwinism, or Post Neo Darwinism evolutionary theory?

 

[sk8Joyful]

Additionally:
"6. Interpret and draw conclusions, reform the hypothesis if necessary. Again no faith.

Too often, they draw Erroneous conclusions, like that... causes this...

When nothing of the sort is the case. But because most people are now so brainwashed,
to accept anyone with a stethoscope & a white labcoat as (knowledgible) authority,
the above are regarded a nigh gods, & their every Order is followed, whether it makes any sense or not.

Therefore, Yes, aquiescing to the science-gods, is a definite act of faith; and
you better pray they don't manage to kill you in the process
as assuredly much of their nonsense does kill that is.
.

 

[CabVet]

Do you accept Newton or Einstein's theory of gravity?
Do you accept Darwinism, Neo Darwinism, or Post Neo Darwinism evolutionary theory?

Newton's gravity is an accurate approximation of what Einstein's general relativity describes with much better precision.

Evolution is descent with modification.

Contrarily to religion, I don't follow any doctrine. As new evidence becomes available, theories are refined and we gain a better understanding of nature.

Back in the 1800's a meter used to be defined as one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth's equator to the North Pole. Today it is defined as the distance traveled by light during 1⁄299,792,458 of a second.

 

[sk8Joyful]

Contrarily to religion, I don't follow any doctrine.

Except science is also a religion.

 

[CabVet]

Except science is also a religion.

Yes, just because you say so. Hey, driving a car requires faith that when you turn the key the car will start. It also requires faith that when you step on the gas, the car will move. It also requires faith that when you step on the breaks, the car will stop. Therefore, according to you guys' definitions, driving a car is a religion.

 

[sk8Joyful]

True, EVERY thing we as humans choose experiencing is from faith.

Only God doesn't have to live by faith, because He KNOWS EVERYthing.

 

[Nabobalis]

Yes, just because you say so. Hey, driving a car requires faith that when you turn the key the car will start. It also requires faith that when you step on the gas, the car will move. It also requires faith that when you step on the breaks, the car will stop. Therefore, according to you guys' definitions, driving a car is a religion.

That is the problem when people try to define faith to include science, you've made it totally meaningless. We all have to accept some sort of "faith" or axioms just to live without having to question every little thing.

 

[RickG]

Additionally:
"6. Interpret and draw conclusions, reform the hypothesis if necessary. Again no faith.

Too often, they draw Erroneous conclusions, like that... causes this...

That is why there is a peer review process, to correct that. No doubt the scientific method can be misused. Such a case would be where one begins with a conclusion and works backwards to find things that support the hypothesis. The problem with that is there one must "ignore" other data that does not support the conclusion. That is too often the scenario used creationist scientists to dispute well founded science.

When nothing of the sort is the case. But because most people are now so brainwashed,
to accept anyone with a stethoscope & a white labcoat as (knowledgible) authority,
the above are regarded a nigh gods, & their every Order is followed, whether it makes any sense or not.

When you say most people, I gather you mean the public. At this step in the scientific method, should not have been informed at all of any results as the process is incomplete.

[quoe]Therefore, Yes, aquiescing to the science-gods, is a definite act of faith; and
you better pray they don't manage to kill you in the process
as assuredly much of their nonsense does kill that is.
.[/quote]

I think you are describing something far outside the scientific method.

 

[RickG]

True, EVERY thing we as humans choose experiencing is from faith.

I think you are confusing faith with knowledge. Faith has no physical means to support it. Knowledge does. They are distinctively different.

 

[AV1611VET]

Knowledge does.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Notice how atheists will despise Biblical wisdom and instruction?

QV my Goliath thread to see this truth in action.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I must ask you what you think faith is ... please.

I can name at least 2 places in your process that require some sense of faith - even with your empirical stipulation.

Well if there is no empirical justification for empiricism what justifies it?

Have you studied induction?

Not much but why is it relevant?.

Have you studied measurement theory?

No please explain the relevance.

I'm sorry if I appear anal about this, but I'm not alone. The literature on this topic is massive.

Go ahead and explain please i am all ears.

 

[RickG]

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Notice how atheists will despise Biblical wisdom and instruction?

QV my Goliath thread to see this truth in action.

There you go again AV, apples and oranges.

If I throw a rock into a pond, I know it will sink provided the pond is not frozen because the specific gravity of the rock is greater than that of the water. That is knowledge that is actually observable and measurable.

I believe God exists. That is faith. I cannot observe or perform any tests to verify that he exists. My belief is unsupported, that is faith. That does not question whether God exists or not, it only clarifies the difference between faith and knowledge.

 

[AV1611VET]

There you go again AV, apples and oranges.

Sooner or later, Rick, your science should come in conflict with the Bible, and you would have to make a decision: the Bible or science? if you haven't already.

Whether it be taking a stand on Jonah and the whale, the burning bush, or Jesus' resurrection, you can't take an it's-all-science attitude.

To burn someone because the Ark could not have been seaworthy, yet believe that God resurrected from the dead should, in my estimation, at least generate a modicum of cognitive dissonance.

And I'm not necessarily talking to you, I'm talking to all of us -- myself included.

 

[RickG]

Sooner or later, Rick, your science should come in conflict with the Bible, and you would have to make a decision: the Bible or science? if you haven't already.

Whether it be taking a stand on Jonah and the whale, the burning bush, or Jesus' resurrection, you can't take an it's-all-science attitude.

To burn someone because the Ark could not have been seaworthy, yet believe that God resurrected from the dead should, in my estimation, at least generate a modicum of cognitive dissonance.

And I'm not necessarily talking to you, I'm talking to all of us -- myself included.

Feel better? Now, in the future please address the topic and only the topic.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Good thing most Christians don't worship the Bible as the fourth person of the Trinity. (I think some appear to equate/conflate the Bible with the 2nd person of the Trinity.)

 

[sk8Joyful]

I think you are confusing
faith with knowledge.
Faith has no physical means to support it. Knowledge does.
They are distinctively different.

Faith, vs. knowledge??

I learned that in grade-school: the teacher made a conflicting statement in science-class,
I questioned him about: Last year the book & you said THAT was a PROVEN scientific FACT, we had to memorize to pass the test.
but
This year THIS is spouted as a PROVEN scientific FACT, but they're completely opposite, so which one is right?
The teacher said, that science is always changing... so I said: when they don't know, what's what, How can you call it a PROVEN FACT??
The teacher said, it really doesn't matter to us at this point.
Our job is to memorize what we're told, whether it makes sense or NOT;
because we don't know enuf yet.
That was another juncture, of many... at which I decided as an 8 yr. old,
that most adults were idiots, completely lost in arrogance...
__________________________________________________
That said, I'm not confused about the scientific method, as
I had to work around umpteen (often deadly) applications of it for 40 years.
Here's only 4 personal examples:
1. Medical doctors' scientific knowledge insisted
that unless I agreed to become another Cancer research
lab-rat in May 1982, I would be dead by Christmas.
so I did NONE of what they said.
Instead I did my own scientific... experiments; and I continue alive 28+ years later. PRAISE God!
and
2. Medical doctors' scientific knowledge insisted
my daughter in 1984 would be born dead any minute, horribly malformed, &
if by some off-chance alive, society would pay for her Maintenance as a complete vegetable.
so I refused their confounded abortion.
Instead I did my own scientific... experiments; and
my daughter was born 5lbs.13 ozs. perfectly formed & functional.
We UNschooled at home, and this precious child graduated, from college, with highest honors at age 17
and
3. Medical doctors' scientific knowledge insisted
I had no Bone-mass left in 1999, & unless I took
their 2 cancer-causing 'drugs', I would end-up in a body-cast.
so
I said: Well, God has just put me on Notice: Annie,
How long have you wanted to be an *Iceskater*?
cause you know Figureskating BUILDS bone.
Evidently, I am gonna keep scientifically...experimenting
so I can continue as another, of billions... of proofs, how God/Jesus is Greater
I fell twice as often, as anybody else in my 1st. 2 classes,
(when skaters lacking Control & Speed, get hurt the worst). How many bones have I broken? during my ice-practices: NONE.
and
4. Medical doctors' scientific knowledge insisted
this year, that I am dying of yet another cancer, at age 60. So sure were they,
that last month 2 of those confounded fools literally screamed!! it in my face for 5 entire minutes.
so
what scientific...experimenting do you think I am following yet again?
Obviously this which consistently & dependably gets God's & my Desired Outcomes, right.

Fortunately, I determined to stay insatiably curious, with my list of fascinating questions growing daily... I love science, because it is fun to experiment, & see what new results we can get. AND many of the results countless of us have gotten,
don't leave another person (maimed, or dead); but very much alive, & this abundantly... with Traditionalists going: How is this possible?

Such things are possible, because when you are a Christian, with God-inside guiding your search, then science-experiments you do, allow you to achieve things, that Traditional scientists still think impossible.

There are lots of things I don't understand yet, &
were you to humbly admit it, you don't know everything either.
And neither does any other human. EVERY human lives by faith...

 

[rockytopva]

My thoughts...

E = mc2... The power of light and energy - YouTube

 

[Grizzly]

Faith, vs. knowledge??

Yes. Faith versus knowledge. They are different. Do I have faith that I am typing on a keyboard? Or do I just know I am?

Knowledge is testable, subject to disproof. Knowledge can be improved, changed, sharpened. Knowledge is subject to evidence.

Faith is not testable. You have faith in things you can't know. For example, you cannot test your god, or find proof of his existence. You just have to believe it.

They are different.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well if there is no empirical justification for empiricism what justifies it?

Nothing. People use it because it serves a purpose. The veracity is a different matter.

Not much but why is it [induction] relevant?

Induction is sometimes described as reasoning from the specific to the general. Sometimes it is a reasonable approach (since gravity works inside my house, I expect it will work inside all houses). Sometimes it is not (since my shirt is blue I expect all shirts are blue).

See: The Problem of Induction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Deduction is often considered an opposite of induction, or a reasoning from the general to the specific.

No please explain the relevance [of measurement theory].

One of RickG's steps mentioned data collection, which I am associating with measurement. Measurement implies induction (a meter of length is a meter everywhere), but it also assumes physical principles of its own. For example, I use accelerometers in my work. But acceleration is not something I measure directly. I assume a physical behavior of a crystal such that it is expected to produce a charge proportional to the acceleration.

 

[Habakk]

The scientific method follows a specific naturalistic process. Also science is not about proof or about proving or disproving anything. Science is a tool; an attempt to explain the natural world and make use of its findings.

Christian Faith is about the supernatural and taking God at his word.

Science is based upon facts, evidence, observation and empirical measurment to form a hypothesis based upon consensus. A scientific theory is formed from the conjunction of several hypotheses. One criterion of both hypothesis and theory is that they must be scientifically falsifiable, by a specific criterion of empirical observations.