Does the Scientific Method require Faith?

[Jazer]

I can tell you a comet will destroy the planet tomorrow, and see if it would really happen.

Don't tell us, tell NASA. They pay good money to keep track of that kind of stuff.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't tell us, tell NASA. They pay good money to keep track of that kind of stuff.

NASA should be telling us that -- but science prevents them from considering the book of Revelation, where God has future plans on this earth.

 

[chilehed]

Isnt that just the 'brain in a vat' arguement?
Yes we cant be sure that what we sense is real, but the only practical course of action is to act as though we are.(since the opposite gets us nowhere.)

That's an act of faith, quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

That's an act of faith, quod erat demonstrandum

Why is taking the only available option an act of faith, as opposed to an act of nessesity?

 

[chilehed]

Why is taking the only available option an act of faith, as opposed to an act of nessesity?

That's a false dichotomy. It is both necessary, and an act of faith.

That's part of the nature of human existence: in order to live as human beings it is necessary for us to make acts of faith. We do it every day.

If your definition of "faith" is belief in something which can't be proven, and it's not possible to prove that we are rational, then to believe that we are rational is by definition an act of faith.

That's a highly inadequate definition of faith, but even with the correct definition the conclusion is the same. Science is based on faith.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

That's a false dichotomy. It is both necessary, and an act of faith.

That's part of the nature of human existence: in order to live as human beings it is necessary for us to make acts of faith. We do it every day.

If your definition of "faith" is belief in something which can't be proven, and it's not possible to prove that we are rational, then to believe that we are rational is by definition an act of faith.

That's a highly inadequate definition of faith, but even with the correct definition the conclusion is the same. Science is based on faith.

But that is not true.
I can for example say I do not belief that what I am experiencing is definately not some highly sophisticated simulation(say the matrix), but that the only practical coure of action is to go with it.

Even if it were, I think there is a massive difference between a necesary axiom without which you can do absolutely nothing. And a faith in the sense that we use it today.

To equate the two would be a missrepresentation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Astrology tells people what would happen and see if it would really happen. If this is not an experiment, then what it is?

What testable and verifiable mechanisms do astrologers cite when they make these predictions?

 

[Loudmouth]

NASA should be telling us that -- but science prevents them from considering the book of Revelation, where God has future plans on this earth.

It also prevents them from considering that Leprechauns caused the rockets to fail on the shuttle instead of faulty O-rings. I guess you want them to consider Leprechauns and other unseen entities before looking elsewhere?

 

[chilehed]

But that is not true...

You say that very easily, but all you do in support is to repeat your false dichotomy.

If my premises are correct, my logic is sound, and the terms are adequately defined, then my conclusion is proven to be true. So unless you can point out the flaw in my reasoning, you're just making wind.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

You say that very easily, but all you do in support is to repeat your false dichotomy.

If my premises are correct, my logic is sound, and the terms are adequately defined, then my conclusion is proven to be true. So unless you can point out the flaw in my reasoning, you're just making wind.

No I said that you can act is if something is true without believing that it is true. Creationists making it through biology class are proof of that.

That is one flaw.

But beyond that the later half of the post applies even if you are correct.

 

[Loudmouth]

If your definition of "faith" is belief in something which can't be proven, and it's not possible to prove that we are rational, then to believe that we are rational is by definition an act of faith.

The definition would be the point under discussion. I would define faith as a belief held in the absence of evidence. This definition allows for beliefs that can be proven right or wrong. For example, I can have faith that a defendent is not guilty, even if there is presently no evidence one way or another. Evidence could come out in the future which may evidence guilt or innocence, and there is nothing within the epistemology that would prevent this evidence from existing.

Using this definition, there is no faith in science. Conclusions are based on evidence, not on a lack of evidence. No theory in science is based on an absence of evidence for other theories. Every theory in science has made positive predictions that are supported by observable evidence. You can disagree that the evidence is inadequate if you like, but what you can not argue is that scientific theories are based on a belief held in the absence of evidence.

For example, Rutherford proposed that there was a positively charged nucleus in the center of the atom. This was his theory. He cited his experiments where negatively charged particles were deflected when shot at gold foil. That was his evidence. His conclusions was based on observations, not a belief in a positively charged atomic nucleus held in the absence of evidence.

What you seem to be pushing is the conflation of axiom and faith. They are different things, IMHO.

 

[Michael]

The definition would be the point under discussion. I would define faith as a belief held in the absence of evidence.

Prior to Guth's paper there was an absence of evidence that "inflation" existed, or had any effect on material objects. How was Guth motivated to even write the very first paper on inflation if not by "faith" in his now dead sky being?

 

[juvenissun]

What testable and verifiable mechanisms do astrologers cite when they make these predictions?

The existence of the profession. That is the final reality check.

 

[juvenissun]

I can tell you a comet will destroy the planet tomorrow, and see if it would really happen. Is that an experiment for you? To me it's just insanity.

An experiment is a methodical procedure carried out with the goal of verifying, falsifying, or establishing the validity of a hypothesis.

Just saying something and waiting to see if it happens is not an experiment.

That is the goal of astrology.

 

[chilehed]

No I said that you can act is if something is true without believing that it is true...

If that's the case then you can never say that we have proven anything.

 

[CTD]

So have I missed anything? Has anyone concocted a scheme under which one would, in the absence of any faith in the success of the project, conduct any investigation?

 

[chilehed]

The definition would be the point under discussion. I would define faith as a belief held in the absence of evidence...

Then how do you explain the existence of concepts such as "being faithful to your spouse'?

No, in fact what you describe is not faith at all, but credulity. The modern confusion between faith and credulity is a distortion that arose out of the so-called Enlightenment, foisted on the ignorant by ignoramuses like Bertrand Russel.

The English word faith is historically given the meaning attached to the Hebrew word aman, which is translated as “believe”, “trust”, “have faith”, and also “support”, “nourish”, and “make lasting”. A derivative word is omenat, meaning “pillars” or “supports of the door” as in 2 Kings 18:16. Another cognate is emunah, which is “faithfulness” or “trust”, as in Exodus 17:12 where God brought victory to Israel as long as Moses would hold his hands up. Aaron and Hur held up his hands so that they “remained emunah until sundown”. All of these illustrate that faith is an action that we take, it's about what you DO and not merely about what you believe.

The actual, historical definition of faith is "an act of the will in which one adheres to another who is known", which makes perfect sense of concepts such as "being faithful to one's spouse". To think that such a concept could have its known meaning given your definition of faith strains... credulity.

But my point holds for your definition of faith, as well as for the correct definition. Here's my point:

Using this definition, there is no faith in science. Conclusions are based on evidence...

Our acceptance of the evidence and of our reasoning is based on the presuppositions that the human mind is rational, and that it is capable of making observations which conform to reality. Neither of these presuppositions are capable of being demonstrated scientifically: they are accepted as an act of faith.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

If that's the case then you can never say that we have proven anything.

That would depend how you define proven.

Proven within the context of 'true as far as our senses can determine' could most certainly be appropriate.

 

[davedajobauk]

Trial and error / [WHATEVER WORKS] /experience and gleaned-understanding
Evidence, is proof that an assumption is 'correct' _for it's being repeatable

~sentience _evaluates that which becomes FACT
by reason and survival
Men [and women] are creatures of 'comfort'
and all things 'sit comfortably' [or, NOT]

The firm foundations, which support what is, IS... and not 'MAYBE'
gives 'work-space' for what MIGHT-BE, to be examined/ compared /tested

RED SKY AT NIGHT =
RED SKY IN THE MORNING =

Experience and then Probability ....'explored' = science

dave

 

[acropolis]

Our acceptance of the evidence and of our reasoning is based on the presuppositions that the human mind is rational, and that it is capable of making observations which conform to reality. Neither of these presuppositions are capable of being demonstrated scientifically: they are accepted as an act of faith.

Once you define 'rational' and 'reality' it's possible to determine both of those things scientifically.