Do you think science requires faith?

[Johnny Punani]

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.

Great answer Ign.

When I took Intro to Philosophy and studied Hume's Problem of Induction he made a very compelling case against science in general because it uses assumptions (faith).

However, I was also doing a research paper about Hawking Radiation and learning about virtual particles and wondered if quantum functions could be a serious challege to Hume's "Wrecking Ball" induction argument.

[Enter Apotheosis]

I agree w/ you, but didn't think it was a big enough thing to bring up.

That makes two of us.

[Johnny Punani]

I would also like to suggest that Hume's Induction problem and Quantum Functions could support those who believe in God because in both emphasize the importance of "something" observing or the point/position of observation by "something".

If something needs to do the observing for a function, proof, or object to be proven true or exist and if the Bible gives a corrects description of God and Creation, specifically the meaning of Creation giving "glory" to God which means to do what it's purpose was/is by him. Then God is the one who observes all functions, proofs, etc and their conclusions, and thus; their actions would validate the Bible's claims and give him "glory." We just lack the perspective in these situations.

Crazy Stuff...

[Johnny Punani]

I refuse to fall into this Humean trap, because it leads to fatalism. On an even more basic level, we can't even trust that our senses are accurately reporting. For all I know, I could be a fever dream of a 12 year old Angolan girl.

There are certain things we must accept to function, namely that our senses are reporting correctly, and that induction is true.

I don't consider these faith, except in the most nitpicky semantic sense.

It's certainly not the "faith" we discuss in everyday life, and that's dangerous in a discussion like this, because words have meaning, and that particular word carries a lot of baggage not implied in a Humean minimalistic sense, which can muddle things tremendously, and cause poor Corcaigh to cry in frustration.

I consider them necessities. Just as Geometry has postulates necessary to prove the rest.

You are certainly correct in your first sentence. You might be correct in your second sentence, but the premise of sentence one does not lead to the conclusion in sentence two, because it in no way addresses whether God is necessary for order. If He is, then there would be no disorder for us not to be in, not observing it.

If you think Hume is bad in regards to fatalism, go read Sartre's stuff on metaphysics. You'll want to put a bullet in your head afterwards. One thing that is a common thread when studying philosophers who reject the existence of God/Higher Power is the progression into depression over existence itself by them.

[dreamingwolf]

The question makes no sense. Faith contradicts Science on many levels. You can't believe the bible if you believe Science. Science is proof, The bible is a book written by man. A book of stories.

You know the phrase actions speak louder than words? That rule applies to this discussion. Science speaks, the Bible "tells."

Ive never understood why people do this. I get that people who are anti-christian or religion in general would use science as a club to bludgeon faith, but what do these people gain by being exclusionary in the message that you are either of science or of faith.

[DCsportsfan53]

Ive never understood why people do this. I get that people who are anti-christian or religion in general would use science as a club to bludgeon faith, but what do these people gain by being exclusionary in the message that you are either of science or of faith.

I think his opinion is obviously spoken from complete ignorance. Science and religion are not conflicting ideas, they deal in separate realms. I don't know why it's such a hard concept to understand. And I don't understand why anyone would try to use one to disprove the other. One deals only in what is knowable, one deals in that which is unknowable.

[RLeVan]

The problem stems from people that attempt to intermingle the two and justify their positions by conveniently editing out what doesn't fit thier beliefs. For example, the OP omitted part of the definition. For those that didn't read Mirriam-Websters full definition 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

We can all proclaim with some justification that scientific truths remain in a state of flux. To the best of our knowledge, and given known constants, a certain reaction will occur. Interjecting faith has nothing to do with the scientific process. Faith is something that cannot be disproved. Faith in gravity is rediculous. It's the difference between a tangible and an intagible.

[Jumbo]

whenever I stumble across Johnny Punanai :yikes: doing the philosophy 101 shtick :read: I feel a terrible disturbance in the Force. :twitch:

I know you'll be lookin for me JP

[Bang]

When they first split the atom, they didn't know whether or not it would cause a chain reaction and literally light the sky on fire, thereby incinerating all of us in the process.

They did the test anyway.

Does that require faith or hubris?

Is the faith in a higher being that won't allow us to light the sky on fire? Or is the faith in the self, allowing for the hubris that even without a definitive answer, they believed the split would not kill the planet?

Does faith have to be religiously based?

~Bang

[Buddy Dude]

I think his opinion is obviously spoken from complete ignorance.

That'll win you the trophy for stupidest statement ever. :1stplace:

Just to clue you in on something - Just because you don't agree with someone's opinion, doesn't make it ignorant or wrong. :2cents:

I think religion is a total load of crap, that's my choice. It's also the choice of many other members on here. We don't attack or insult you for your religious beliefs, so don't hate on us because we like actual evidence for things.

[alexey]

There are certain things we must accept to function, namely that our senses are reporting correctly, and that induction is true.

Why do you have to accept that induction is true? You can function just as well if you accept that future will not necessarily mimic the past. You do not need absolute certainty in order to function.

Being able to function does not mean your senses are reporting correctly. There is a pretty big logical leap from being able to function to being a correct representation of reality... unless, of course, being able to function is what you mean by "reporting correcty."

[alexey]

When I took Intro to Philosophy and studied Hume's Problem of Induction he made a very compelling case against science in general because it uses assumptions (faith).

This is only a problem if you view science as something that is out to find absolute truths. Add "as far as we know" to science and the big scary Problem of Induction goes away.

[alexey]

One thing that is a common thread when studying philosophers who reject the existence of God/Higher Power is the progression into depression over existence itself by them.

If so, I suspect the Western-style philosophical framework plays an important role in this. The whole thing seems geared towards grounding, trying to hold onto something. This can be quite depressing if you reject existance of the ultimate something. The Eastern approach seems to consider that whole enterprise misguided, a much healthier framework in my view.

[Zguy28]

When they first split the atom, they didn't know whether or not it would cause a chain reaction and literally light the sky on fire, thereby incinerating all of us in the process.

They did the test anyway.

Does that require faith or hubris?

Is the faith in a higher being that won't allow us to light the sky on fire? Or is the faith in the self, allowing for the hubris that even without a definitive answer, they believed the split would not kill the planet?

Does faith have to be religiously based?

~Bang

This is a good post Bang. And its what this thread is really about. Unfortunately I think some folks think faith doesn't extend beyond religion.

[Corcaigh]

The fact of the matter is for the current time (I guess at sometime string "theory" might replace it) quantum mechanics is the best explanation for many physical phenomena, and it appears that God does play dice with the Universe. That's why I never discount those stories in the Weekly World News. It is possible that Cousin Cletus did "walk" through the wall.

I don't get your point, if it was serious. QM isn't random. There is a finite, albeit very small, probabilitity of Cletus walking through the side of his trailer.

[PeterMP]

This is only a problem if you view science as something that is out to find absolute truths. Add "as far as we know" to science and the big scary Problem of Induction goes away.

I don't know why people don't understand this. This was the point I was trying to make when discussing probabilities before. Scientist never say this is the answer 100% of the time. They say given this set of variables this is the probability of this being the answer. There is nothing about induction that invalidates science, if it is done properly.

[PeterMP]

I don't get your point, if it was serious. QM isn't random. There is a finite, albeit very small, probabilitity of Cletus walking through the side of his trailer.

Yes, but what determines when (or if) the probability comes true. Given enough people leaning against walls for long enough somebody should fall through the wall. Could you predict whom and when? Essentially, the samething holds true for any experiment. Given enough people doing enough experiments somebody's experiment will fail due to a QM affect. We don't know who and we don't know when, and even after it happens, we probably won't even know it was a QM affect, which is one reason that even if you have done something a large number of times, and you think you completely understand the system, it isn't safe to assume that if you repeat it again you will get the same result. That next time might be the time a QM affect messes you up.

[Corcaigh]

When they first split the atom, they didn't know whether or not it would cause a chain reaction and literally light the sky on fire, thereby incinerating all of us in the process.

They did the test anyway.

Does that require faith or hubris?

Is the faith in a higher being that won't allow us to light the sky on fire? Or is the faith in the self, allowing for the hubris that even without a definitive answer, they believed the split would not kill the planet?

Does faith have to be religiously based?

~Bang

My recollection of reading about the Manhattan project is that the issue was raised, they did the math and determined that there wasn't a risk.

Faith doesn't have to be religiously based, but I think religious faith operates at a very different level of 'commitment' for want of a better word.

Faith exists elsewhere ... just take a look at the range of opinions being expressed in the Stadium on the fortunes of the Redskins.

I might have faith in the better long term return of investing in stocks rather than bonds, but again, that's hardly the same faith that religion requires.

[Corcaigh]

I don't know why people don't understand this. This was the point I was trying to make when discussing probabilities before. Scientist never say this is the answer 100% of the time. They say given this set of variables this is the probability of this being the answer. There is nothing about induction that invalidates science, if it is done properly.

I think every experimental scientist understands this - I'm not always sure about theoreticians who work in fields where predictions can't be tested. They, as I said, are as much philosophers as scientists.

[Corcaigh]

Yes, but what determines when (or if) the probability comes true. Given enough people leaning against walls for long enough somebody should fall through the wall. Could you predict whom and when? Essentially, the samething holds true for any experiment. Given enough people doing enough experiments somebody's experiment will fail due to a QM affect. We don't know who and we don't know when, and even after it happens, we probably won't even know it was a QM affect, which is one reason that even if you have done something a large number of times, and you think you completely understand the system, it isn't safe to assume that if you repeat it again you will get the same result. That next time might be the time a QM affect messes you up.

Understood, but this is not in any way related to faith.

[Zguy28]

The problem stems from people that attempt to intermingle the two and justify their positions by conveniently editing out what doesn't fit thier beliefs. For example, the OP omitted part of the definition. For those that didn't read Mirriam-Websters full definition 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Hey, its my thread, I can leave it out if I want to!

Seriously, it was intentional. But not for the reasons you think. I intentionally wanted to avoid discussion on religion.

We can all proclaim with some justification that scientific truths remain in a state of flux. To the best of our knowledge, and given known constants, a certain reaction will occur. Interjecting faith has nothing to do with the scientific process. Faith is something that cannot be disproved. Faith in gravity is rediculous. It's the difference between a tangible and an intagible.

Doesn't it take a certain amount of faith in those known constants to be certain of the reaction?

[Zguy28]

I might have faith in the better long term return of investing in stocks rather than bonds, but again, that's hardly the same faith that religion requires.

Why is it different?

What type of faith is required for religion?

[Corcaigh]

Doesn't it take a certain amount of faith in those known constants to be certain of the reaction?

No. If the existing body of evidence does not give you very high confidence that the value of those constants are known, you first need to achieve that confidence yourself. Otherwise your results will not be reliable.

In work I performed I spent many months on additional research away from what I was directly investigating because the 'constants' I needed to use in certain calculations were not sufficiently well known.

[Corcaigh]

Why is it different?

What type of faith is required for religion?

Not meaning to trivialize the analogy, the diference is because I diversify my portfolio; I have a house and also make other investments. I have faith that the blue chips will give me a better overall return in the long term, but I keep my options open. Using this analogy, you would be attending Muslim and Hindu services at least a portion of your time.

[alexey]

Doesn't it take a certain amount of faith in those known constants to be certain of the reaction?

You are talking about something that looks similar to faith, but is actually a very different mechanism.