Zguy28 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Do you think science requires faith? For example, does it require faith to draw a conclusion in science? For the purposes of this thread we will define faith as: 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction. (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith) Also, note that faith implies a level of trust in the object of faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Science doesn't require faith in the slightest. Having faith in the scientific process is usually not a bad thing, but even that isn't even close to a requirement. In fact, having a complete lack of faith in certain scientific processes is one of the vehicles through which we improve science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted September 24, 2007 Author Share Posted September 24, 2007 Science doesn't require faith in the slightest. Having faith in the scientific process is usually not a bad thing, but even that isn't even close to a requirement.In fact, having a complete lack of faith in certain scientific processes is one of the vehicles through which we improve science. Do you believe faith was required by the scientists who created the atomic bomb? Some thought that it might ignite the atmosphere and render the planet lifeless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Do you believe faith was required by the scientists who created the atomic bomb? Some thought that it might ignite the atmosphere and render the planet lifeless. In the same way that you have faith that you won't fall off a roller coaster in the middle of a loop, yes. Nonetheless, science still doesn't require faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Faith plays an essential role in science. Hume was perhaps the first to note that induction, (the basis of every scientific study) is a deeply flawed concept. Essentially, in order for science to make any sense at all, we have to assume that the world is often the same, that an experiment done once will yield the same results when done again under similar enough circumstances. You can read about the problem in detail here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grue_%28color%29, where it is shown that using standard scientific arguments we can "prove" that all emeralds will turn blue on june 14, 2015. Or in more general here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction This isn't a joke, it's a serious and acknowledged problem in the scientific community that no one seriously doubts. I know it sounds rediculous, but it is impossible to conduct scientific inquiry without faith in the process of induction. The philosophy of science class I took as an undergrad was a pretty sobering experience for us scientists to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 No, I don't think doing science requires faith. A healthy skepticism towards expectations is actually helpful. Applying science might require some faith, though, as anyone afraid of flying can tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 No, I don't think doing science requires faith. A healthy skepticism towards expectations is actually helpful.Applying science might require some faith, though, as anyone afraid of flying can tell you. Essentially the point I was trying to make :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 you have to have faith your experiments will work...................eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Do you believe faith was required by the scientists who created the atomic bomb? Some thought that it might ignite the atmosphere and render the planet lifeless.Most of the scientists probably thought it might destroy the world when they started the project. They didn't build the bomb solely based on faith, however. They conducted many experiments to verify that the reaction would proceed as expected. They built smaller models, they checked their equations, and they did not test the bomb itself until they had convinced themselves that it would work, and that it would not destroy the world.Scientists are skeptics, and they need evidence to believe. They went forward not based on faith but based on empirical results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 science doesn't draw conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reic Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 I don't think science requires faith, but you can have faith and be a scientist I am a believer of God and am studying to be a scientist, so i run into a lot of dillema dealing with having to learn theories I don't believe in. That is another topic for another thread, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Faith plays an essential role in science. Hume was perhaps the first to note that induction, (the basis of every scientific study) is a deeply flawed concept. Essentially, in order for science to make any sense at all, we have to assume that the world is often the same, that an experiment done once will yield the same results when done again under similar enough circumstances. Faith in induction is necessary to go to bed and believe you will wake up, to put one foot in front of the other when walking, and to believe that your next breath will contain oxygen ... Maybe the question should be whether science requires more faith than is necessary to function as a human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Always a degree of faith in all science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 science also assumes that there is cause and effect, that and induction require at least some faith. Beyond those levels very little faith is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Essentially, in order for science to make any sense at all, we have to assume that the world is often the same, that an experiment done once will yield the same results when done again under similar enough circumstances. Actually scientist don't assume this. This is tested. It is called replication, and then the results, if presented properly, are stated in the form of a probability (e.g. there is a probability the above result is reprodicable w/ a probability (it can be either a p-value or confidence interval) of X). Frequently, people don't go that far, and just present a std. dev. or std. error, but those are just substitutes for the probablity (given that information and the number of replicates a probability can be calculated). Frequently, people assume that their data should have a normal distribution and how frequently this happens vs. the number of times that it is a good assumption (or safe assumption) (and what those things mean), what affect that assumption has on their results, and how good methods of calculating probablility (and the meaning of those calcuations in some cases) if you don't have a normal distribution are valid questions that are going to have different answers not just from subject to subject, but experiment to experiment. However, most scientist make an effort to at least measurue how reproducible their results should be under similar conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Science requires faith because it is not possible for a single person to do everything. I use Excel and other programs to do a lot of calculations. To do science in my field, I require different complex instruments that I realistically have only a basic understanding of how the function/operate, and they are all run by special software that I have no clue about the underlying programming. I have faith that the people that built these instruments and written these programs have done their job properly. Now, I don't do so blindly. If the companies that made/built these things had a history of errors and mistakes, I'd be more worried or use something different, but I've never heard of Excel miscalculating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Faith in induction is necessary to go to bed and believe you will wake up, to put one foot in front of the other when walking, and to believe that your next breath will contain oxygen ... Maybe the question should be whether science requires more faith than is necessary to function as a human being. I'm not sure what more faith means in this context. It's not particularly well defined. And really, I'm not so sure that faith in induction is all that different from faith in god. To use your examples, for some people, it is a faith in god that allows them to wake up every morning and put one foot in front of the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 I'm not sure what more faith means in this context. It's not particularly well defined. And really, I'm not so sure that faith in induction is all that different from faith in god. To use your examples, for some people, it is a faith in god that allows them to wakeup every morning and put one foot in front of the other. Well, there's your difference. In one case, you're accepting what you see, in the other, you're deciding what caused you to see that . See the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 No, I don't think doing science requires faith. A healthy skepticism towards expectations is actually helpful.Applying science might require some faith, though, as anyone afraid of flying can tell you. Interesting. Define doing more in depth. Use an example for doing.You don't believe it requires a measure of faith in the constancy (is this the right word?) of the natural laws of the universe only when applying science ? Science requires faith because it is not possible for a single person to do everything. I use Excel and other programs to do a lot of calculations. To do science in my field, I require different complex instruments that I realistically have only a basic understanding of how the function/operate, and they are all run by special software that I have no clue about the underlying programming. I have faith that the people that built these instruments and written these programs have done their job properly.Now, I don't do so blindly. If the companies that made/built these things had a history of errors and mistakes, I'd be more worried or use something different, but I've never heard of Excel miscalculating. This is more or less what I was asking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 I'm not sure about science, but being a Redskins fan certainly does :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 I'm not sure what more faith means in this context. It's not particularly well defined. And really, I'm not so sure that faith in induction is all that different from faith in god. To use your examples, for some people, it is a faith in god that allows them to wake up every morning and put one foot in front of the other.Well, as long as the faith in God is merely that God operates the world in a repeatable way such that inductive reasoning works, then that kind of religious faith would be all that is needed to do science.I think I would treat that as the baseline for faith - I don't know a lot of people that pray before taking every step because they believe that God is completely whimsical. A different level of faith is required to believe that certain behavior will lead to a preferable afterlife or to believe that all matter is composed of vibrating strings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Science requires faith because it is not possible for a single person to do everything. I use Excel and other programs to do a lot of calculations. To do science in my field, I require different complex instruments that I realistically have only a basic understanding of how the function/operate, and they are all run by special software that I have no clue about the underlying programming. I have faith that the people that built these instruments and written these programs have done their job properly.Now, I don't do so blindly. If the companies that made/built these things had a history of errors and mistakes, I'd be more worried or use something different, but I've never heard of Excel miscalculating. There's really no faith involved in using Excel. If Microsoft makes a defective product that doesn't do what it is promised to do, you can sue them and recover any damages you may have incurred.Believing that your car will run for 10,000 miles or that your microwave will not explode is not really faith ... it is trust backed up by a warranty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Actually scientist don't assume this. This is tested. It is called replication, and then the results, if presented properly, are stated in the form of a probability (e.g. there is a probability the above result is reprodicable w/ a probability (it can be either a p-value or confidence interval) of X). Frequently, people don't go that far, and just present a std. dev. or std. error, but those are just substitutes for the probablity (given that information and the number of replicates a probability can be calculated). Frequently, people assume that their data should have a normal distribution and how frequently this happens vs. the number of times that it is a good assumption (or safe assumption) (and what those things mean), what affect that assumption has on their results, and how good methods of calculating probablility (and the meaning of those calcuations in some cases) if you don't have a normal distribution are valid questions that are going to have different answers not just from subject to subject, but experiment to experiment. However, most scientist make an effort to at least measurue how reproducible their results should be under similar conditions. actually scientists do assume this. Okay, I admit, that's a pretty arrogant way to start an argument, but you started it! Seriously though, the problem is that scientists put faith in the idea that hypotheses can be tested. You can't possibly measure how reproducable something is without some faith in the induction hypothesis. DjTj is probably right though that even though the cornerstone of science is based on hot air, the removal of that cornerstone presents far more dramatic problems, so it might not be worth worrying about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 your microwave will not explode is not really faith ... it is trust backed up by a warranty. That warranty doesn't do you much good if you are dead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 That warranty doesn't do you much good if you are dead at least your heirs will get a big payday ... where's that value of life thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.