Does the Scientific Method require Faith?

[sk8Joyful]

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?

Thank you Yes, as I keep saying we do everything by Faith

 

[sk8Joyful]

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.

I have no doubt that God will keep us going, thru thick & thin, as He always has.

But the newspapers may not be working for a while in
that sort of catastrophe, you think?

 

[sk8Joyful]

Our acceptance of the evidence and of our reasoning is based on 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.

Here's a question: Whose reality are you conforming to?

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no doubt that God will keep us going, thru thick & thin, as He always has.

But the newspapers may not be working for a while in
that sort of catastrophe, you think?

Well, to be honest -- I did kinda exaggerate, didn't I?

 

[RickG]

Thank you Yes, as I keep saying we do everything by Faith

Understand this.

Faith is what you believe without any physical evidence to support what you believe. Key words - physical evidence and support.

Knowledge is what you know based on physical evidence that is supported.

Example: There was an automobile accident one mile from your house. You did not see it, you were only told about it. You have to take their word for it. You believe it happened because you have on reason to believe otherwise. There is no supporting evidence, only your faith that they told the truth.

There was an automobile accident one mile from your house. You were there but not at the time of the accident. However, the two mangled cars were still there and you could physically see them. That is physical supported evidence. You were not there but there is no belief that it happened. You see the two mangled cars.

One scenario if faith, the other is not. Now, go back to the OP and show where in the scientific method that any of those steps are based on faith. All the steps are based on some physical supported evidence or knowledge of that evidence. Nothing is completely unknown.

 

[AV1611VET]

Knowledge is what you know based on physical evidence that is supported.

Would you agree with this:

Knowledge is information one acquires after he is born. It can be right/wrong, true/false, confirmed/unconfirmed, trustworthy/suspect.

And for the record, Peter says:

2 Peter 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

Notice faith should come before advanced knowledge?

In addition, look what Peter says about some who once knew Jesus, but chose the path of secular knowledge:

2 Peter 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

Some of these guys -- and I can name one in particular, but I won't -- who knew Jesus Christ intimately at one time, are now pretty good at ridiculing Him.

They are 'entangled therein' by [secular] knowledge.

 

[CTD]

If all faith were blind by definition, nobody should ever have coined the phrase 'blind faith', for it would be redundant.

My faith in my friends and family is not blind. My faith in God is not blind. My faith in America is not blind. Am I forced to say I am certain I always know what my friends, family, God, and country shall do in all situations because of "science"? It is accurate to say science has informed me and I rely on faith in every one of these cases.

The scriptural concept of faith is the only one worthy of acceptance. Even he who claims to believe things conjured up in his imagination - can anyone sincerely believe he actually does?

 

[CTD]

Time after time we see it asserted that all faith must be blind in order to qualify. What we never see is any evidence that any blind faith actually exists. We all know from common experience, on the other hand, that genuine faith exists. Terms which refer to actual things are only properly defined by a process of accurately describing the actual thing to which they refer.

 

[AV1611VET]

Time after time we see it asserted that all faith must be blind in order to qualify. What we never see is any evidence that any blind faith actually exists. We all know from common experience, on the other hand, that genuine faith exists. Terms which refer to actual things are only properly defined by a process of accurately describing the actual thing to which they refer.

Indeed:

Hebrews 11:3a Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,

 

[dbcsf]

I am still waiting for the definition of gravity. Any takers? I decided to throw in an article to support my point.

If you want to go looking on the internet for articles, you can find many. Wikipedia does not define gravity. There are others. Here is one, you search it if you like:

Article:
Greatest Mysteries: What Causes Gravity?
Dave Mosher Date: 10 August 2007 Time: 05:20 AM ET

Editor's Note: We asked several scientists from various fields what they thought were the greatest mysteries today, and then we added a few that were on our minds, too. This article is one of 15 in LiveScience's "Greatest Mysteries" series running each weekday.

In the deepest depths of space, gravity tugs on matter to form galaxies, stars, black holes and the like. In spite of its infinite reach, however, gravity is the wimpiest of all forces in the universe.

This weakness also makes it the most mysterious, as scientists can't measure it in the laboratory as easily as they can detect its effects on planets and stars. The repulsion between two positively charged protons, for example, is 10^36 times stronger than gravity's pull between them—that's 1 followed by 36 zeros less macho.

Physicists want to squeeze little old gravity into the standard model—the crown-jewel theory of modern physics that explains three other fundamental forces in physics—but none has succeeded. Like a runt at a pool party, gravity just doesn't fit in when using Einstein's theory of relativity, which explains gravity only on large scales

"Gravity is completely different from the other forces described by the standard model," said Mark Jackson, a theoretical physicist at Fermilab in Illinois. "When you do some calculations about small gravitational interactions, you get stupid answers. The math simply doesn't work."

Gremlins of gravity

The numbers may not jibe, but physicists have a hunch about gravity's unseen gremlins: Tiny, massless particles called gravitons that emanate gravitational fields.

Each hypothetical bit tugs on every piece of matter in the universe, as fast as the speed of light permits. Yet if they are so common in the universe, why haven't physicists found them?

"We can detect massless particles such as photons just fine, but gravitons elude us because they interact so weakly with matter," said Michael Turner, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago. "We simply don't know how to detect one."

Turner, however, isn't despondent about humanity's quest for gravitons. He thinks we'll eventually ensnare a few of the pesky particles hiding in the shadows of more easily detected particles.

"What it really comes down to is technology," Turner said.

Physicists aren't using mechanical wizardry to discover gravitons just yet, however. Efforts are currently focused on confirming the existence of the Higgs boson, which is the graviton's distant cousin particle responsible for giving matter mass.

Finding the 'toilet'

Sheldon Glashow, winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics, once called the Higgs the "toilet" of the standard model of particle physics.

Turner explained that Glashow coined the term because the Higgs performs an essential function: Keeping the standard model functioning, at least in an intellectual way.

"Really, the Higgs is more like a plumber with duct tape, holding the standard model together," Turner said. "A lot of the inelegance of it's all wrapped up in the Higgs."

And rightly so, he noted, because it's required to make the other forces involving mass—such as gravity—make sense.

"At the same time, the Higgs can be frustrating because it doesn't shed much light on gravity," Turner said, assuming that the particle is eventually discovered.

Accelerating answers

Discovering elusive particles such as the Higgs is something like traveling through time. By using enormous machines to whiz particles close to the speed of light, then smash them together, engineers can mimic the incredible energies present during the early universe.

So early in the universe's existence, particles were too energetic to stick together and form more familiar protons, neutrons and the like.

The Tevatron, Fermilab's 4-mile-circumference (6.3-kilometer) particle accelerator, may have already spotted the Higgs in accelerator data, according to physicists' Web logs. But Turner said the new Large Hadron Collider (LHC) circling 17 miles (27 kilometers) beneath France and Switzerland should clearly confirm it within a few years.

"I think it will be a sigh of relief when the Higgs is discovered," he said. Will particle accelerators, however, eventually pop out a graviton?

Xavier Siemens, a gravitational theorist at the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, said showing gravity acts like a wave needs to happen first.

"Classically, we can measure waves, and waves are made up of particles," said Siemens, who is also a member of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) that looks for wave-like evidence of gravity. By detecting gravitational waves, there would be grounds to suggest gravitons really exist—and begin seeking it out.

"At this point it seems like science fiction. Theoretically, however, we should be able to detect single gravitons," Siemens said. "But how is the big question."

End of article


So, here is my premise. If you cannot explain gravity then whenever gravity is used to support a scientific theory (which is mostly always) then you are basing your reasoning ultimately on a postulated law which you accept by faith.

Gravity is not the only law we postulate, there are others.

I don't find anything particularly wrong with accepting postulated laws, it is a part of our human nature to accept some things on face value. I mean, we live with gravity every day. So, why all the resistance to accepting a postulated law on faith? We do it in math all the time. It is not like we are proving the existence of God or anything. We are just accepting the fact that we are people, and people don't know everything. I am just saying, people use laws when they need to in order to progress their current collection of useful, scientific knowledge. So what if science is based on faith, same as math. It is still a wonderful tool.

 

[Habakk]

So, here is my premise. If you cannot explain gravity then whenever gravity is used to support a scientific theory (which is mostly always) then you are basing your reasoning ultimately on a postulated law which you accept by faith.

Gravity is not the only law we postulate, there are others.

I don't find anything particularly wrong with accepting postulated laws, it is a part of our human nature to accept some things on face value. I mean, we live with gravity every day. So, why all the resistance to accepting a postulated law on faith? We do it in math all the time. It is not like we are proving the existence of God or anything. We are just accepting the fact that we are people, and people don't know everything. I am just saying, people use laws when they need to in order to progress their current collection of useful, scientific knowledge. So what if science is based on faith, same as math. It is still a wonderful tool.

Not necessarily because there is a difference when we talk about law and the causation of the law or about evidence for the effect of gravity and evidence for the causation effect.

A scientific law does not posit a mechanism. A scientific law is a stronger statement than theory simply because it always applies under the same specific conditions and by its nature implies a causal relationship between components not causation of the actual effect.

There is a big difference between Newton’s law of Gravitation and Gravitational Theory and causation. Newton’s law has been confirmed to always be true under said conditions.
Newton’s law states “that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.” You do not need to know the causation of gravity itself to verify that statement of scientific law of causal relationship between its components .

 

[dbcsf]

I guess my whole point is that we do not know the mechanism of gravity. I agree.

And, if we don't know the mechanism, then we accept our observations about gravity on faith and call it a law.

The term "law" basically implies that gravity is "something" because it always behaves the same in all situations. (I guess it may not behave the same at the time of the big bang, because I always hear scientists saying that nothing behaves the same at the time of the big bang.) But, for most applications, gravity conforms to our expectations in a predictable fashion.

And, if we then use gravity when studying the nature of the universe with astronomical observations and calculations utilizing the law of gravity, then our conclusions are only correct if we assume the numbers inserted for the gravity part of the equation are correct.

Thus, we believe the universe is 14 billion years old based, in part, on our faith in the law of gravity.

Judging by the article, someday we may learn the mechanism of gravity. But, for the time being, we do not understand and cannot explain how it works. If we cannot explain the mechanism but we still use it in a formula, then we are taking it on faith.

 

[chilehed]

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

You've not addressed the assumption.

 

[chilehed]

Understand this.

Faith is what you believe without any physical evidence to support what you believe. Key words - physical evidence and support.

Knowledge is what you know based on physical evidence that is supported.

Example: There was an automobile accident one mile from your house. You did not see it, you were only told about it. You have to take their word for it. You believe it happened because you have on reason to believe otherwise. There is no supporting evidence, only your faith that they told the truth...

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.

 

[CabVet]

And, if we don't know the mechanism, then we accept our observations about gravity on faith and call it a law.

No, we accept our observations as fact and simply agree that we do not know the mechanism behind it. Just like we do not have a scientific explanation for the origin of life.

 

[CabVet]

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

This is not a court of law.

 

[chilehed]

This is not a court of law.

Now you're just being petulant.

 

[dbcsf]

I would agree that with your definition of faith what you are saying is correct. It is a strict definition, but fair enough.

So, do you believe that the universe is 14 billion years old? If so, is your belief the same as your belief that when you turn the key in your car the engine will start?

I personally know that my car will start, assuming the engine is in good repair, because I have a reasonable idea of how engines work. Battery, spark, combustion, crankshaft, etc.

How is this knowledge different than my belief that the universe is 14 billion years old? Well, I believe it is that old because I understand some of the calculations based on the age of old supernovas, the speed of light, etc, And, I have to add in that I accept as unproven the force of gravity which I had to use to explain the rate of the expansion of the universe, etc.

You can call it faith, belief, trust, or a different kind of knowing. But, I would say, you do not know gravity in the same sense that you know how your car works. In other words, you have not analyzed gravity by the scientific method and determined its mechanism.

And, if you do not understand the mechanism of gravity in the same sense, then you are, in some way or other, basing your belief in your answer in a non-scientific process of knowing. Call in intuition. Is it based on observed phenomena? Yes, I agree.

Yet, science - the whole point of science - is that we can understand through the process of falsification, or the scientific method, the mechanism of how something works.

And, if we are basing calculations on something which we do not know except by postulation, definition or observation (call it a law), then a part of every answer calculated is believed to be true in a different fashion that pure scientific knowledge.

Does the scientific method require faith? I would submit it requires something more than just science. Call it whatever you like.

 

[Loudmouth]

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?

Now dead? Again, your ignorance of modern science is really tripping you up.

Anyway . . . Gut proposed a hypothesis. This is what all scientists do. He then went out and tested it. The results matched his predictions. Did Guth have faith that he was right? Probably not. Doesn't really matter since it was tested anyway. The scientific community accepted inflation because it fits the evidence, not because Guth said so or because he wrote it down and claimed that it came from a supernatural deity.

Science is a process that exposes faith and removes it. If you are putting forward something as true, and the only way you can back it up is by saying "because I really, really believe that it is true" then it is thrown out. Not so with religion. That is what separates the two.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

No, it isn't. This is a very poor argument. You can do better than this Juve.

The continuing existence of astrology only demonstrates the continuing existence of human gullibility and/or our enjoyment of being entertainingly wrong.