Does the Scientific Method require Faith?

[dbcsf]

good answer

 

[dbcsf]

Nicely said. From the 1920's on we have been entering a period in which people are developing a greater desire and respect for practical knowlege vs. perfect complete knowlege. I wonder where the emerging church fits in.

 

[dbcsf]

Actually, I think gravity is a very interesting example. There are many ways of knowing. I may know how a car motor works. The battery sparks the plug, which ignites the gas, which pushes the piston...

Please explain gravity in the same terms. There is the how and the what. We have named what gravity is. How does it work? Does it use gas? Is there a piston?

Gravity, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, magnetism are all examples of things science takes on faith. We don't really know how they work. We just know that they do work in a predictable fashion. We can describe what we see, but no one yet has explained the "how". No one has described the mechanism.

I believe science uses the information described by gravity, and calls it the "Law of Gravity". Whenever someone uses the "Law of Gravity" in a calculation, they are basing the answer on faith that the "Law of Gravity" true.

Gravity has been studied and described. No one has a theory about how it actually works. That is why it is a law instead of a theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

According to the definition, astrology is a science because it is a system to interpret observed data, the stars.

According to the definition of science that Behe would like to use. However, this is not the definition that scientists use. A scientific system needs to make testable predictions that can be experimented on. Astrology does not do that. Therefore, it is not a science.

 

[dbcsf]

good answer

 

[AV1611VET]

According to the definition of science that Behe would like to use. However, this is not the definition that scientists use. A scientific system needs to make testable predictions that can be experimented on. Astrology does not do that. Therefore, it is not a science.

74

 

[Habakk]

Quantum physics explains what Newtonian Physics and Relativity cannot. There are things quantum physics cannot explain. I don't know of any physics that can explain "creatio ex nihilo". But I have in the past run across published research that has tested "something from nothing" in relation to the big bang and found that it does not work.

Nevertheless, whether things can come from nothing or not, I do not believe they can.

I did not say that quantum physics could explain “creatio ex nihilo,” what I was trying to convey is that neither can we say that “creatio ex nihilo” would violate the laws of physics. The current “hot big bang” theory is a cosmological model that attempts to explain the early expansion of the universe. It does not attempt to explain the creation of the universe. Early stages are postulated to involve possible singularities and non-baryonic exotic particles. Issues such as initial entropy state are still speculative.

Agreed quantum physics doesn’t explain everything but like relativity, predictions made from it are robust. Quantum tunnelling is an effective principle in modern semiconductor electronics. Quantum field theory is a very real science as is quantum fluctuation. One theory involves the creation of matter from a zero state energy by conserving positive and negative energy effects.

We as yet know very little about the actual state of matter and the substance of the building blocks of creation, but we do know that the substance of matter is not as real or solid as perceived. Quantum mechanics is not a strange science but rather it is a genuine attempt to explain the strangeness of matter and the material world itself. With such concepts prevalent I think it would be reasonable to accept that our God that we believe in is more than capable of “creatio ex nihilo.”

 

[Jazer]

Gravity has been studied and described. No one has a theory about how it actually works.

Newton did not have a clue, but Einstein did.

 

[sk8Joyful]

We as yet know very little about the actual state of matter
and the substance of the building blocks of creation, but
we do know that the substance of matter is not as real or solid as perceived.

 

[RickG]

I did not say that quantum physics could explain “creatio ex nihilo,” what I was trying to convey is that neither can we say that “creatio ex nihilo” would violate the laws of physics.

My misunderstanding, sorry.

 

[juvenissun]

According to the definition of science that Behe would like to use. However, this is not the definition that scientists use. A scientific system needs to make testable predictions that can be experimented on. Astrology does not do that. Therefore, it is not a science.

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

 

[juvenissun]

Is Atheism a type of Theism? Is baldness a hair color? Is A the same thing as not A? No, no, and no.

Psudo- and A- are very different in logic. Do you know that?

 

[juvenissun]

#1. God sees everything _we are made in His image/ not equal, with God
#2 Is awareness of a forthcoming event
#3 Means somewhat more-than, the grumblings of the heart

.....

dave

Hi, Dave, Nice to see you here.
Tired of word game? (no offense, just kidding )
Many people here are far less nice than there. Hope you visit more frequently and let us know more about your inspirations.
Merry Christmas.

 

[chilehed]

It has been stated in another thread that science requires faith. ....The question I have is, "where in the scientific method is faith required"?

It requires the presuppositions that the human mind is rational, and that it is capable of making observations which conform to reality.

Both of those presuppositions are taken as a matter of faith.

I see that no one's willing to discuss the presuppositions of all scientific observation. Very interesting.

....which are?

That the human mind is rational, and that it is capable of making observations which conform to reality.

*crickets chirping....*

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

*crickets chirping....*

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.)

 

[dbcsf]

Anyone using gravity for anything is using faith.

Einstein never told anyone how gravity worked. He described it, like everyone else. He never knew how gravity worked. We can observe gravity, but no one currently understands how it works. We all take it on faith. There are people who understand how cars work, even if I do not. Gravity, no one.

Generally I think science is best viewed as a sub-set of the tools available to humans to map out and comprehend their place in the physical world. Part of how we are made includes rationality. We should take advantage of it. Science works well for many things.

People are not Vulcans. We are people. We all have a spiritual element as a part of our make-up also.

For spiritual truth science is lacking. The trick is to find out what is best viewed with science, what is best viewed with pseudo-science (such as psychology) and what is best viewed spiritually. Use spirit tools for spiritual questions, scientific tools for scientific questions. Do the best you can to figure out your place in the world, and live the best you can with what you know.

In the old days religion kind of did it all. Today we should know better. We are well past using epicycles to explain the movement of the planets. No one is believing that the moon is a perfect sphere anymore. If you want to know how the moon was created, try the museum of natural history in NYC, they have a wonderful presentation. If you are depressed, go to a psychologist. They don't do science, but what they do is not without benefit. There is a lot of a different kind of truth there. If you want to follow Jesus (or any other religious path) go to church, pray, accept the grace of Jesus and follow the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

 

[CabVet]

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

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.

 

[CabVet]

In the old days religion kind of did it all. Today we should know better. We are well past using epicycles to explain the movement of the planets. No one is believing that the moon is a perfect sphere anymore. If you want to know how the moon was created, try the museum of natural history in NYC, they have a wonderful presentation. If you are depressed, go to a psychologist. They don't do science, but what they do is not without benefit. There is a lot of a different kind of truth there. If you want to follow Jesus (or any other religious path) go to church, pray, accept the grace of Jesus and follow the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

Even though I don't agree with the first part of your post (saying that we don't know exactly how gravity works is very different from saying "God did it, and that settles it"), this second part is the most sensible statement I have seen posted by a religious person in this forum for awhile.

Oh, and even though psychologists don't do science per se, a lot of psychology is based on science.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

And I can say with certainty that if a comet ten times the size of the earth were to slam into this planet, while at the same time an asteroid fifteen times the size of the earth hit us on the other side, we would be reading about it in the newspapers the next day.

 

[CabVet]

And I can say with certainty that if a comet ten times the size of the earth were to slam into this planet, while at the same time an asteroid fifteen times the size of the earth hit us on the other side, we would be reading about it in the newspapers the next day.

In heaven? Oh, sorry, I mean, you in heaven and me in hell?