Does the Scientific Method require Faith?

[CabVet]

Now you're just being petulant.

Took awhile for the name calling to begin, but alas... "Evidence" in a court of law is not the same as "scientific evidence".

 

[Loudmouth]

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?

In my experience, out of 10 hypotheses 1 usually turns out to be somewhat correct. The very fact that scientists run experiments demonstrates that they lack faith in their ideas. If it was about faith they would just proclaim that it was true. No need for experiments. You know, like creationism and religion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Took awhile for the name calling to begin, but alas... "Evidence" in a court of law is not the same as "scientific evidence".

Ever heard of forensic science?

 

[Loudmouth]

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

You are aware that words have different meanings in different contexts, aren't you? That is why I was careful to define what I meant by "faith" within the context of the scientific method. The fact that the same word has a different context in a marriage than it does in the scientific method does not negate what I was trying to say.

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 we are talking about different types of faith, it would appear. The type of faith that you describe seems to be closely associated with agnosticism, the idea that certain things are unknowable. I, for one, think science is the search for things that are knowable. In fact, that's the whole purpose. Also, those who have faith in God do not claim that the existence of God is unknowable. In fact, quite the opposite.

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.

That's great and all, but we are talking about the modern usage of faith and how it relates to the modern scientific method.

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.

If you are going to engage in semantic arguments then you are wasting everyone's time. Try to understand what someone is saying. It might help.

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.

The difference is that the conclusions of science are not the presuppositions.

Let me put this another way. Baseball has rules. When the Cubs and the Cardinals play a game they both abide by those rules. The outcome of the game is not determined by the rules. That is, there is no rule that says the Cubs must win.

It is the same in science. The presuppositions do not determine the conclusions. The rules of science simply define what counts as an observation (which is usually defined through empiricism). After that, the conclusions follow from the observations just as the results of a baseball game follow from the play on the field, not an edict in the rule book. There is nothing in the rules of science that say Evolution or the Big Bang must be assumed to be true. These are theories that are drawn from the evidence independently of the presuppositions.

Also, if you think that a belief in the existence of Zeus is the same as the belief that our interactions with reality are rational then we really are far apart in our view of what faith is.

 

[AV1611VET]

In my experience, out of 10 hypotheses 1 usually turns out to be somewhat correct.

So of what scientists see and test, 90% is deemed 'incorrect,' and the remaining 10% is deemed 'somewhat correct'?

Science is myopic, isn't it?

 

[Loudmouth]

So of what scientists see and test, 90% is deemed 'incorrect,' and the remaining 10% is deemed 'somewhat correct'?

The 10% is published in peer reviewed papers. Even in the discussion section of the paper scientists almost always phrase their findings as "May indicate" or "the data suggests". Science is always tentative, which is contrasted by the dogmatic, faith based beliefs that religions push.

Science is myopic, isn't it?

What does that even mean, AV? You seem to accept science just fine when you can use it to find a link between thalidomide and birth defects. In fact, you even pronounce this theory to be fact. If science is myopic, then the alternatives must be blind.

 

[AV1611VET]

So of what scientists see and test, 90% is deemed 'incorrect,' and the remaining 10% is deemed 'somewhat correct'?

The 10% is published in peer reviewed papers. Even in the discussion section of the paper scientists almost always phrase their findings as "May indicate" or "the data suggests".

Wow -- that's a stronger "yes" than I expected.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is myopic, isn't it?

What does that even mean, AV?

It means you can't see past your instruments.

In fact:

Surveys of the sky over the last decade have revealed that the composition of the Universe is largely unknown to us.

SOURCE

 

[Loudmouth]

It means you can't see past your instruments.

Our instruments allow us to see what our naked eye can not. Or were you unaware of that? Theologians had thousands of years to tell us what made up matter. They failed. Scientists have figured it out, and they used the instruments you so malign. Like I said, if science is myopic then religion is blind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Our instruments allow us to see what our naked eye can not.

I'm fully-aware of what your instruments allow you to do; and even if you could see 10,000 times further, science would still be myopic.

Or were you unaware of that?

No.

Theologians had thousands of years to tell us what made up matter.

That's not a theologian's job -- it's a scientist's job; and God didn't want you to know what made up matter, until the proper time.

That was one of the reasons for the Tower of Babel incident -- to stunt the growth of science.

They failed.

As they should have.

Scientists have figured it out, and they used the instruments you so malign.

I didn't 'malign' any instruments.

Science is myopic; if I'm wrong, show me.

Like I said, if science is myopic then religion is blind.

Not quite:

Theologians may not have told you what made up matter, but they can tell you where it came from.

 

[RickG]

This is a prime example of the inadequacy of your definition of faith.

You're ignoring that fact that a key bit of evidence is your knowledge of the reliability of the witness.

At the very least you know that when people tell such stories it's very likely that they are telling the truth, but if you know the person well then you have a larger data set about his reliability. If you know that he'd crawl across a glass-covered street to tell a lie rather than sit under a tree to tell the truth, then you'd probably be less inclined to believe him.

No, in fact what you call faith is actually 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 your decision to believe that there was a car wreck based on the testimony of a witness, or to 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.

All I see is a lot of hand waving and obfuscating. No one has of yet explained how any of the steps of the scientific method are based on faith. Everything in the scientific method is based upon known facts, observation, physical laws and understanding of how all that works with supporting evidence. Faith does not have supporting evidence.

 

[RickG]

It means you can't see past your instruments.

In fact:

No it doesn't. Part of the scientific method is to make predictions based accumulated knowledge and physical laws.

In 1898 Svante Arrhenius predicted from observations and the known physics of the time that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 could cause global average temperature to rise from 3 to 6 degrees C. Modern scientific methods and knowledge currently states a figure of 3.5 degrees C. Direct measurements over the past century to present show this to be true. I would say that observation is well past instruments.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would say that observation is well past instruments.

And I predict that if you add 5 to a 5 on a calculator, a 10 will show up.

Big deal -- science at its best, eh?

 

[RickG]

So of what scientists see and test, 90% is deemed 'incorrect,' and the remaining 10% is deemed 'somewhat correct'?

Science is myopic, isn't it?

Only from your point of view which is based upon ignorance of science. In other words, you have an uninformed biased opinion.

 

[RickG]

And I predict that if you add 5 to a 5 on a calculator, a 10 will show up.

Big deal -- science at its best, eh?

Yes, and if I date an igneous rock and find it to be 5 million years old +/- 1% ten times. I can be assured that it is correct. Furthermore, if I do the same thing using 10 different isotope methods and come up with the same answer I can be assured it is correct. That is how "science" knows that the earth has made more than 6,000 trips around the sun. There is no embedded age no matter how far you stick you head in the sand.

 

[Grizzly]

Yes, and if I date an igneous rock and find it to be 5 million years old +/- 1% ten times. I can be assured that it is correct. Furthermore, if I do the same thing using 10 different isotope methods and come up with the same answer I can be assured it is correct. That is how "science" knows that the earth has made more than 6,000 trips around the sun. There is no embedded age no matter how far you stick you head in the sand.

Sure - but he's got the ancient writings of a bronze-age people that he's using as a science manual. You can't beat that.

 

[chilehed]

...we are talking about different types of faith, it would appear. The type of faith that you describe seems to be closely associated with agnosticism, the idea that certain things are unknowable.

No, we're talking about the correct, historical definition of the English word "faith". It appears to me that you haven't really thought very hard about what I said.

...If you are going to engage in semantic arguments then you are wasting everyone's time.

You think that it's waste of time to establish the correct definition of terms?

...The difference is that the conclusions of science are not the presuppositions.

Perhaps you haven't noticed that I've said nothing about any conclusions. My comments are aimed only at the presupposition that we are rational and that we can make observations that conform to reality. That's not something that is provable scientifically. If it is, then prove it.

 

[chilehed]

Took awhile for the name calling to begin, but alas... "Evidence" in a court of law is not the same as "scientific evidence".

I'm sure that you're not at all interested in whether or not the guy taking the data is reliable or not. *rolleyes*

 

[chilehed]

All I see is a lot of hand waving and obfuscating. No one has of yet explained how any of the steps of the scientific method are based on faith.

I most certainly have, quite clearly. So far no one has bothered to provide a coherent rebuttal what I've said.

Everything in the scientific method is based upon known facts, observation, physical laws and understanding of how all that works with supporting evidence.

When you make an observation, how do you know that you're not self-deceived? When you draw conclusions from the evidence, how can you prove that you're not self-deceived?

Faith does not have supporting evidence.

Yes it does, as I've shown from the actual meaning of the word and the way it's been used in English since the language developed up to the present day. You're just choosing to ignore an argument that you can't rebut.

If someone decides to deal rationally with the substance of my argument, fine. If not, I see no point in continuing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only from your point of view which is based upon ignorance of science. In other words, you have an uninformed biased opinion.

I'm not the one who said it, chief.

All I'm doing is asking questions.

Is that what I get for it? insulted?