Do you think science requires faith?

[Burgold]

If you dig deep enough into any theory or law you find an assumption. Nothing in science is proven absolutely, therefore, there is always an element of faith. Otherwise, we couldn't progress.

[alexey]

If you dig deep enough into any theory or law you find an assumption. Nothing in science is proven absolutely, therefore, there is always an element of faith. Otherwise, we couldn't progress.

Assumption is not faith. You do not need to believe in the assumption.

[Burgold]

To move forward with an assumption and to build on it suggests that you have faith in that assumption or faith that the assumption is valid and reliable. To build on an assumption you have no faith in is foolishness. That's when you replicate until you have enough faith to move forward.

[Enter Apotheosis]

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

This debate is getting way too nitpicky. We're working our way down to "I have faith that refraining from jumping in a vat of hydrochloric acid will prolong my life".

[alexey]

To move forward with an assumption and to build on it suggests that you have faith in that assumption or faith that the assumption is valid and reliable. To build on an assumption you have no faith in is foolishness. That's when you replicate until you have enough faith to move forward.

Assumptions are necessary. You make them, you move forward (or backward), you discover, you change assumptions as needed. Over time science had to change all kinds of previously "valid and reliable" assumptions.

edit: in many ways faith in assumptions actually holds science back

[Henry]

No.

Science is arriving at conclusions based on observation. If the conclusion turns out to be wrong, the conclusion changes.

If the conclusion turns out to be wrong, the application of science based on that conclusion will fail. To use PeterMP's example, if the science used to develop Excel is flawed, Excel won't work. There's no faith involved. The application of science either works or it doesn't.

We do expect some consistancy in scientific data. But that's not faith. If an inconsistancy in scientific data appears, the methods and conclusions are re-examined.

[DjTj]

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.

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

I think this is going to be my answer to this question:

Yes, faith is required for science, but the only faith that is necessary is that when you do the same thing the same way, you will produce the same result.

[Burgold]

Assumptions are necessary. You make them, you move forward (or backward), you discover, you change assumptions as needed. Over time science had to change all kinds of previously "valid and reliable" assumptions.

edit: in many ways faith in assumptions actually holds science back

Here we agree.

I remember watching an experiment once upon a time in college. The professor was dead certain that this would work and because it had worked a hundred times before. However, no matter what he tried that day his experiment failed. He tried it six, seven, eight, twenty times. All to the same negative result. Still, he kept telling what we should have seen and that this works. He began getting frantic, because his faith was being shaken by the failure of this experiment. Finally, one of the students timidly raised his hand and asked if it was plugged in. Sure enough, there was one machine that a janitor had unplugged. The experiment worked. Faith was restored. And suddenly, all was right with the world.

[Zguy28]

No.

Science is arriving at conclusions based on observation. If the conclusion turns out to be wrong, the conclusion changes.

If the conclusion turns out to be wrong, the application of science based on that conclusion will fail. To use PeterMP's example, if the science used to develop Excel is flawed, Excel won't work. There's no faith involved. The application of science either works or it doesn't.

We do expect some consistancy in scientific data. But that's not faith. If an inconsistancy in scientific data appears, the methods and conclusions are re-examined.

OK. But the way I understood PeterMP's Excel analogy, was that if its flawed, it won't give you accurate information, and you are trusting that the information is accurate. I don't believe his analogy was built on the notion that if Excel was flawed it wouldn't work.

But I can't speak for PeterMP and I could be absolutely wrong.

[PeterMP]

OK. But the way I understood PeterMP's Excel analogy, was that if its flawed, it won't give you accurate information, and you are trusting that the information is accurate. I don't believe his analogy was built on the notion that if Excel was flawed it wouldn't work.

But I can't speak for PeterMP and I could be absolutely wrong.

My point was that, I don't double check every calculation in Excel to determine that Excel did the calculation correctly. I am ASSUMING that the programming behind Excel is correct. Now, whether that assumption amounts to faith I guess is open to assumption, but I was trying to start w/ Zguy's defintion:

"3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction."

I believe w/ strong conviction that Excel is giving correct answers. If I didn't believe it, I would use something else. Now, I do think that w/ his definition he has somewhat rigged the discussion.

Back to the quantum mechanics points I was making and sort of inductive reasoning. I believe w/ a strong conviction when I lean against a wall that I won't fall through. I believe this because I know from QM that the probability is VERY low that I will fall through, and my repeated personal experience tells me that walls are "solid" enough to hold me up.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Now, I do think that w/ his definition he has somewhat rigged the discussion.

Well, that was painfully obvious from the beginning... but we're still debating the issue.

[Zguy28]

Well, that was painfully obvious from the beginning... but we're still debating the issue.

I think you guys need to stop thinking I had some ulterior motive to this.

I did not. I'm just asking a question (that I had to answer in a college class) and I provided the framework of the discussion. It is a legitimate definition of faith.

Now, what's painfully obvious to me (made apparent by your first post in this thread) is that you clearly are more narrowminded than I thought.

If you want to discuss the topic, feel free to participate. Otherwise do not.

[DjTj]

I think you guys need to stop thinking I had some ulterior motive to this.

I did not. I'm just asking a question (that I had to answer in a college class) and I provided the framework of the discussion. It is a legitimate definition of faith.

Now, what's painfully obvious to me (made apparent by your first post in this thread) is that you clearly are more narrowminded than I thought.

If you want to discuss the topic, feel free to participate. Otherwise do not.

We do need more than an abstract definition of faith though ...

Does it require faith to put one foot in front of the other when walking? (faith that the ground will not disappear, that your leg will move when you tell it to, and that gravity will continue to work as expected)

If your definition requires faith to do the most basic things in life, then yes, science, like every action we take every second of the day, requires faith.

...this would be a much more interesting discussion, however, if we had a definition for faith that required a little more...

[Enter Apotheosis]

I think you guys need to stop thinking I had some ulterior motive to this.

I did not. I'm just asking a question (that I had to answer in a college class) and I provided the framework of the discussion. It is a legitimate definition of faith.

Now, what's painfully obvious to me (made apparent by your first post in this thread) is that you clearly are more narrowminded than I thought.

If you want to discuss the topic, feel free to participate. Otherwise do not.

I have been discussing the topic, but its been a matter of semantics the entire time. What is in debate is not whether or not science requires faith but what faith is of its own accord.

One can easily argue that every single action one performs requires a degree of faith, but that scarcely fits the popular definition of the word. My stance is always that you have to rely more on connotation than a strict interpretation of a given dictionary definition... and, besides, can you blame anyone for suspecting you of ulterior motives given A) the nature of this board, your recent efforts at bible-thumping (I'm not saying that in a derogatory sense, just can't come up with a more appropriate phrase), and C) the fact that the definition you pulled up did mention religion (even though you did omit that in your original post)?

Edit: Seriously, DJTJ, you pull that **** way too much... swooping in and beating me to the chase, often times throwing in things I neglected to mention in the process of composing my post :laugh:

[Henry]

OK. But the way I understood PeterMP's Excel analogy, was that if its flawed, it won't give you accurate information, and you are trusting that the information is accurate. I don't believe his analogy was built on the notion that if Excel was flawed it wouldn't work.

But I can't speak for PeterMP and I could be absolutely wrong.

That's kind of irrelevant to what I was saying. Forget the Excel example then (although if Excel is making incorrect calculations eventually that will become clear and then yes, my example still holds.) Use any technology developed through scientific discovery. Use the flying plane instead. If it doesn't fly, the scientific data used to design it's ability to fly is flawed, and re-examined, and re-tested, and amended. There's no faith there. It either works or it doesn't, and if it doesn't it's changed.

Unless, of course, your definition of faith is as DjTj describes, and then there's really no point in this discussion because everything from your foot landing on the floor to you taking your next breath could be called faith. Then the word ceases to have any meaning.

[alexey]

One can easily argue that every single action one performs requires a degree of faith...

Does it require faith to put one foot in front of the other when walking? (faith that the ground will not disappear, that your leg will move when you tell it to, and that gravity will continue to work as expected)

If your definition requires faith to do the most basic things in life, then yes, science, like every action we take every second of the day, requires faith.

Faith is simply not necessary.

It is very tempting to claim that most basic things in life require faith, but that easy-to-make argument is also very easy to refute.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Faith is simply not necessary.

It is very tempting to claim that most basic things in life require faith, but that easy-to-make argument is also very easy to refute.

Refute it, then, while still proclaiming that science requires faith. Better yet, define faith for us as you see it. :2cents:

[alexey]

Refute it, then, while still proclaiming that science requires faith. Better yet, define faith for us as you see it. :2cents:

I'm not sure what you're asking me to do. I'm not sure where is the argument I need to refute, and I do not think that science requires faith.

I think all definitions of faith will have some form of a "belief" as the underlying mechanism. That would be enough to make my point.

[Enter Apotheosis]

I'm not sure what you're asking me to do. I'm not sure where is the argument I need to refute, and I do not think that science requires faith.

I think all definitions of faith will have some form of a "belief" as the underlying mechanism. That would be enough to make my point.

Well, neither of us was saying that everything requires faith. We were just pointing out that the arguments of some in this thread are headed in that general direction.

So I guess I'm not sure what your point was to begin with... :whoknows:

[Zguy28]

Could you define faith as drawing a conclusion because you are certain that the evidence presented to you (or observed) is accurate?

[DjTj]

Could you define faith as drawing a conclusion because you are certain that the evidence presented to you (or observed) is accurate?

So the question is: Does science require drawing conclusions based on evidence?

Yes, yes it does.

[alexey]

Well, neither of us was saying that everything requires faith. We were just pointing out that the arguments of some in this thread are headed in that general direction.

So I guess I'm not sure what your point was to begin with... :whoknows:

My point is that these arguments are not a part of the definition; they do not come out of the definition. That general direction is a confusion, things do not actually go there.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Could you define faith as drawing a conclusion because you are certain that the evidence presented to you (or observed) is accurate?

That would be 'assumption'. Faith usually implies that there is some level of doubt... so I'd say a better definition would be placing your trust in the fact that some result will be achieved despite an awareness of some likelihood of failure.

[Enter Apotheosis]

My point is that these arguments are not a part of the definition; they do not come out of the definition. That general direction is a confusion, things do not actually go there.

Thats exactly why those points were being made :laugh:

[Zguy28]

Faith usually implies that there is some level of doubt...

I disagree. In fact I see it as the exact opposite of faith to have doubts. But I think you are on to something. Perhaps science doesn't require faith, you may be correct. Perhaps the confusion is between two very similar yet different ideas: faith and assumption.

Let's look at the official definition of faith.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

Faith

–noun

1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

6.the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

7.the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.

8.Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. —Idiom

9.in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

Now assumption

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assumption

–noun

1.something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption.

2.the act of taking for granted or supposing.

3.the act of taking to or upon oneself.

4.the act of taking possession of something: the assumption of power.

5.arrogance; presumption.

6.the taking over of another's debts or obligations.

7.Ecclesiastical. a.(often initial capital letter) the bodily taking up into heaven of the Virgin Mary. b.(initial capital letter) a feast commemorating this, celebrated on August 15.

[Origin: 1250–1300; ME assumpcioun, assompcioun, assumsion < L assūmptiōn- (s. of assūmptiō), equiv. to assūmpt(us) taken up (ptp. of assūmere; see assume) + -iōn- -ion]

—Synonyms 1, 2. presupposition. 1. hypothesis, conjecture, guess, postulate, theory. 3. presumption. 5. effrontery, forwardness.