Slate: No Faith In Science

[PeterMP]

This is where I disagree. I have no certainty, I act like, but I do not believe.

This goes back to several discussions that we had here, and a common misconception about the role of belief in atheism. Atheism is a rejection of a claim "god(s) exist". This is different from accepting a claim "no gods exist". Agnostic atheist claims no knowledge about gods and thus does not believe.

 

I don't understand how or why you would act like something is true w/o believing it is true.

 

And I especially don't understand it with respect to science.

 

Does the person taking antibiotics beleive those antibiotics are going to kill the bacteria?

 

Yes.

 

Based on the assumptions built into science, we can determine the probability that it will (i.e. what type of bacterial infection do they have and based on what we know what is the level of antibiotic resistance for the particular antibiotic they are taking and so what is the probability that they have something that is resistant).

 

Bigger picture, if we don't accept as the default the assumptions built into science though, we don't really know what the probability is.

 

But I don't know anybody that has ever said to me I don't take antibiotics, because I'm not sure the assumptions in science are true.

 

Or has said, the doctor prescirbed this antibiotics, but I don't believe they are going to work so I also requested a few other drugs (e.g. I'm going to talk a modern antibiotic, but also a sulfa drug and do other things that they did pre-antitiobics.).   Most people I know act like the antibiotic is going to work because they believe it will.

 

If you didn't believe it will, I don't understand why you would act like it would.

[alexey]

I don't understand how or why you would act like something is true w/o believing it is true.

...

In my view, acting like something is true without believing with certainty is a reasonable outcome of realizing that we are fallible beings acting on imperfect information. It is perhaps the only reasonable accommodation to our condition.

[PeterMP]

In my view, acting like something is true without believing with certainty is a reasonable outcome of realizing that we are fallible beings acting on imperfect information. It is perhaps the only reasonable accommodation to our condition.

 

But you've introduced the word certainity now though.  If you are 90% sure something is true, then that makes sense.  I'm talking about not knowing that the probability of B > is greater than not B.

 

Which is what I think is the case if you don't just assume the assumptions behind science is the case.

 

If you don't believe the probability of the science behind airplanes > than it not, why would you ever get on a plane.

 

And even taking into account science, planes still can crash.

[alexey]

But you've introduced the word certainity now though.  If you are 90% sure something is true, then that makes sense.  I'm talking about not knowing that the probability of B > is greater than not B.

...

How about this:

 

There is 100% probability that a coin will land on heads or on tails*

*everything we know could be wrong

[PeterMP]

How about this:

 

There is 100% probability that a coin will land on heads or on tails*

*everything we know could be wrong

 

Looks like to me you want to play word games with believe and act like.

 

How about this?

 

A = the probability that "science" will hold and your plane won't crash

B = the probability that "science" will not hold, but it will not affect your plane and your plane won't crash

C = the probability that "science" will hold and your plane will crash (some sort of technical/pilot induced error that can be explained by science will happen and cause your plane to crash)

D = the probability that "science" will not hold in a manner that causes your plane to crash

 

Based on our collective memory A > C

 

I would argue that purely from a probability standpoint that it is very likely that D > B

 

But I have no good evidence for the relationship of (A+C) with respect to (B+D).

 

Do you?

 

If you don't have good evidence that (A+C) >>> (B+D), why would you ever get on an airplane?

 

I'd suggest that most people, including myself do not have evidence that (A+C) >>> (B+D), but get on airplanes because they believe it is so.

 

They have faith that it is so.

 

They have faith in "science".

[alexey]

I know a number of things can go wrong when I get on the plane: human error, malfunction, terrorist attack, etc. I do not have faith that these things won't happen but I know there is a low probability. I estimate that probability by looking at frequency of events and numbers of flights. When I use the same approach on things that do not happen, I end up with 0 and so i do not even seriously consider it.

[s0crates]

Haven't read the thread yet, but I feel compelled to reply to the article in the OP.

Leaving aside the OP's equivocation on rationalism and empiricism, there is another issue I want to discuss: the problem of induction.

Scientists are notorious for making light of Hume's problem of induction, which is what is happening in the OP. I'll try to explain.

Science does indeed rest on faith, specifically the faith in nature being governed by laws. As Whitehead said, medieval belief in fate provided the roots of modern empirical science. Modern science "is an unconscious derivative of medieval theology." You might say it this way: theological determinism (e.g. Calvinism) is akin to materialistic determinism (e.g. Empiricism).

Put simply the problem is this: Empirical science rests on the assumption that the future will resemble the past. Otherwise observation could not yield knowledge. How do we know that the future will resemble the past though?

The answer is through observation, which is the answer given to this question in the OP. This answer amounts to saying that in the past, the future has resembled the past, so it will in the future. Is that not obviously question begging? It assumes the very thing which is asked to be proven!

We cannot show that the future will resemble the past in a way that does not beg the question, hence it is something we simply assume. In other words, it is something we take on faith. That is what it really means to say science is, in its own way, religious. Is faith in observation, in the given, really anything more than belief in revelation?

Still, the OP is right in saying there is a difference between religious faith and scientific faith, but I think the difference is overblown. The latter is really an evolution of the former.

[alexey]

Science does indeed rest on faith, specifically the faith in nature being governed by laws. As Whitehead said, medieval belief in fate provided the roots of modern empirical science. Modern science "is an unconscious derivative of medieval theology." You might say it this way: theological determinism (e.g. Calvinism) is akin the materialistic determinism (e.g. Empiricism).

Put simply the problem is this: Empirical science rests on the assumption that the future will resemble the past. Otherwise observation could not yield knowledge. How do we know that the future will resemble the past though?

...

I disagree. You do not need to assume that the future will resemble the past or have faith in it. You simply act like it will because what else are you going to do? How would you act if you were to doubt it?

[s0crates]

I disagree. You do not need to assume that the future will resemble the past or have faith in it. You simply act like it will because what else are you going to do? How would you act if you were to doubt it?

I'm unclear where the disagreement is. You say you do not assume that the future will resemble the past, but then you suggest that you cannot doubt it. So which is it?

[alexey]

I'm unclear where the disagreement is. You say you do not assume that the future will resemble the past, but then you suggest that you cannot doubt it. So which is it?

Can I neither assume it nor doubt it, for example handle it like a premise?

[s0crates]

Can I neither assume it nor doubt it, for example handle it like a premise?

Premises are assumptions. (Some are observations, but those too are assumptions). They are propositions which we assume to be true.

If you do not assume the future will resemble the past (or like causes will produce like effects), then you cannot draw any conclusions from observations (experiments). This is what I mean when I say empirical science cannot precede without this assumption.

For example, the fact that water will boil at 100 degrees Celsius only follows from the repeated observations of it doing so IF you grant that the laws of nature are such that like causes produce like effects. Otherwise observation tells us nothing.

I will diagram this to help explain.

Premise 1: water boiled at 100 degrees Celsius yesterday.

Premise 2: water boiled at 100 degrees Celsius today.

Premise 3: the future will resemble the past.

Conclusion: therefore water will always boil at 100 degrees Celsius.

The only way the conclusion follows is if you assume premise 3! But what reason do you have to assume that? The only reason I can think of is that it always has in the past, but that just begs the question.

There is this faith in science, that the universe is orderly, that it is put together in such a way that we can understand it. Almost like God's design, revealed to us through his grace, speaking loosely. The deterministic framework of the universe allowing us to predict the future is not really a far cry from God's plan (or fate).

This is a well-known puzzle which has been largely ignored by scientists.

Edit: to be sure, experience is a much better source of revelation than some ancient book or sage figure, but it is still a source of revelation.

[alexey]

Premises are assumptions. (Some are observations, but those too are assumptions). ...

I will diagram this to help explain.

Premise 1: water boiled at 100 degrees Celsius yesterday.

Premise 2: water boiled at 100 degrees Celsius today.

Premise 3: the future will resemble the past.

Conclusion: therefore water will always boil at 100 degrees Celsius.

The only way the conclusion follows is if you assume premise 3! But what reason do you have to assume that? The only reason I can think of is that it always has in the past, but that just begs the question.

There is this faith in science, that the universe is orderly, that it is put together in such a way that we can understand it. Almost like God's design, revealed to us through his grace, speaking loosely. The deterministic framework of the universe allowing us to predict the future is not really a far cry from God's plan (or fate).

This is a well-known puzzle which has been largely ignored by scientists.

Edit: to be sure, experience is a much better source of revelation than some ancient book or sage figure, but it is still a source of revelation.

Thank you for the explanation. That is how I understood it as well, yet I still see a difference between an assumption and a premise.

To be sure, many places on the internet conflate the two, e.g. "premises are statements of assumed fact".

Yet other places do make a distinction, and they do it in a way that supports my position. Interestingly enough, GMAT preparation sites appear to be a good source for this:

http://prepfortests.com/gmat/tutorials/criticalreasoning/analyzethetext

Premises are the facts or evidence that support or lead to the conclusion. Unlike assumptions, they are explicit.

...

Assumptions are the facts that support the conclusion, like the premise does, but unlike the conclusion and premises they are not stated in the text: they are implicit.

http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/arguments-and-assumptions-on-the-gmat/

1) Premise: the starting point of deductions; often, agreement to this is assumed.

2) Conclusion: what the author wants you to believe by the end of the argument

3) Assumption: the unstated link between premise and conclusion.

So if we go this route and explicitly turn our assumption into a premise, then science no longer needs faith and there is no puzzle. You are free to accept or reject the premise without having to use faith, assume, or assert anything.

[PeterMP]

I know a number of things can go wrong when I get on the plane: human error, malfunction, terrorist attack, etc. I do not have faith that these things won't happen but I know there is a low probability. I estimate that probability by looking at frequency of events and numbers of flights. When I use the same approach on things that do not happen, I end up with 0 and so i do not even seriously consider it.

 

From my prevous post:

 

"D = the probability that "science" will not hold in a manner that causes your plane to crash"

 

What is the probability that D will be true?

 

This depends on a number of things and things like the probability that this is a simulation. (as one possible example).

 

IF this is a simulation, then the probability that your plane crash is dependent on the probability that the simulators will do something to the laws of physics in the simulation that will cause your plane to crash (and the "disturbance" could be local to only your flight, or it could be global in nature to the whole simulation (or something in between).

 

I don't know what the probability that this is a simulation to even start to address what the probability is that they might do things to affect air planes.

 

So I can't say anthing about D, then saying A+C  >>> D+B is not possible.

 

This is directly related to the point I've asked you several times over the last two threads what happens if this is a simuation and you spend the day studying something.  What have you really learned?

 

I've directly answered the question from my perspective in both thread.

 

You've avoided it.

 

Your doing the samething now, but applying to airplanes and the larger time reference, but it doesn't really matter to the point.

[PeterMP]

Thank you for the explanation. That is how I understood it as well, yet I still see a difference between an assumption and a premise.

To be sure, many places on the internet conflate the two, e.g. "premises are statements of assumed fact".

Yet other places do make a distinction, and they do it in a way that supports my position. Interestingly enough, GMAT preparation sites appear to be a good source for this:

http://prepfortests.com/gmat/tutorials/criticalreasoning/analyzethetext

http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/arguments-and-assumptions-on-the-gmat/

So if we go this route and explicitly turn our assumption into a premise, then science no longer needs faith and there is no puzzle. You are free to accept or reject the premise without having to use faith, assume, or assert anything.

 

But there is no real difference in terms of the probability of it being true.

 

The difference is an explicit vs. implicit statement nothing at all realted to the idea that one is more likely than the other.

 

But in addition, I can go show you tons of posts where you (and I) make it an assumption by not explicitally stating it (any thread that has as its focus climate change or evolution).

 

You didn't even start this thread that is directly about the subject, nor does the piece you link, by stating this argument is true based on the past predicts the future is a premise.

[alexey]

From my prevous post:

"D = the probability that "science" will not hold in a manner that causes your plane to crash"

What is the probability that D will be true?

...

Can you demonstrate that the possibility you are offering is actually possible?

[PeterMP]

Can you demonstrate that the possibility you are offering is actually possible?

 

Are you asking me to prove something?

 

I've provided evidence in the other thread.

 

Can you demonstrate that the possiblity that I am suggesting is not possible?

[alexey]

Are you asking me to prove something?

I've provided evidence in the other thread.

Can you demonstrate that the possiblity that I am suggesting is not possible?

No I cannot make any claims about that.

[alexey]

...

The difference is an explicit vs. implicit statement nothing at all realted to the idea that one is more likely than the other.

...

I think so too. I see it as something that allows us to discus probabilities to begin with.

We can base our judgments about probabilities of different events based on patterns that we observe.

You seem to suggest that we can make judgements about probabilities of events that we have never observed.

I can see how one may speculate about that, but those speculations would be based on more than just patterns we observe in reality.

[s0crates]

Thank you for the explanation. That is how I understood it as well, yet I still see a difference between an assumption and a premise.

To be sure, many places on the internet conflate the two, e.g. "premises are statements of assumed fact".

Yet other places do make a distinction, and they do it in a way that supports my position. Interestingly enough, GMAT preparation sites appear to be a good source for this:

http://prepfortests.com/gmat/tutorials/criticalreasoning/analyzethetext

http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/arguments-and-assumptions-on-the-gmat/

So if we go this route and explicitly turn our assumption into a premise, then science no longer needs faith and there is no puzzle. You are free to accept or reject the premise without having to use faith, assume, or assert anything.

Okay, fair enough. I see the distinction you mean to draw between premise and assumption now.

By that distinction, science typically does assume the future will resemble the past. Sometimes in philosophy of science this is an explicitly stated premise, but more often it is an unstated assumption of scientific research.

The problem of induction is that you cannot prove that claim (whether explicitly stated or not) in a non-question-begging way.

Scientists trust that nature is law-like and orderly, otherwise we could not do science. I still think that trust is a kind of faith.

[alexey]

...

By that distinction, science typically does assume the future will resemble the past. Sometimes in philosophy of science this is an explicitly stated premise, but more often it is an unstated assumption of scientific research.

...

I see science as something that provides us tools. Those tools are based on observed patterns. We may pick up and use these tools if we want to base our decisions in observed patterns.

People of different metaphysics can make and use the tools. Some people may have faith in tools, other people may not even imagine what "faith" is like

[PeterMP]

You seem to suggest that we can make judgements about probabilities of events that we have never observed.

 

1.  Here at least, I'm not.

 

2.  Observe is a funny word, but what you really mean here is observed multiple times repeatably under specific conditions because it isn't hard to find examples people, including pilots, that have "observed" things they would describe as not being possible through our normal understanding of the Universe.  For example, 18% of Americans have claimed to see a ghosts.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/30/18-of-americans-say-theyve-seen-a-ghost/

 

3.  However, most importantly with respect to this thread and convesation, you either can say something about the probabilities of things that can't be studied by science or you can't

 

You have a high degree of certainity that the probability of A+C >> B+D

 

I've said, I don't know what D is.  I don't know how to begin to determine what D is and that prevents from saying that A+C >> B+D

 

And if you can't start to say what D is, then I'm not sure why it makes sense to get on an airplane other than faith that D is small.

 

You've said:

 

"When I use the same approach on things that do not happen, I end up with 0 and so i do not even seriously consider it."

 

That's your positive assertion of being able to say something about the value of D, not mine.

 

I can't make a good judgement at least, so I'm agnostic.  I'd argue you can't make a good judgement, but conclude it is very close to 0.

[alexey]

Peter,

I may be missing something... but I seem to keep saying that I will not include D in the probability calculation based on reason, and you seem to keep saying that I must include it and use faith to assume that it is small.

[PeterMP]

Peter,

I may be missing something... but I seem to keep saying that I will not include D in the probability calculation based on reason, and you seem to keep saying that I must include it and use faith to assume that it is small.

 

It is the same point that I made to you before and what sOcrates is making to you.

 

If you spend the day studying something and this is a simulation, what have you learned?

 

If this is a simulation, what is the probability that the simulators will not change things in a manner inconsistent with the assumptions underlying science (e.g. that the universe is natural in a manner and reproducable) that will mess up your flight?

 

If you can't tell me much of anything about the probability that this is a simulation, how can you tell me anything about the probability that they simulators won't do something to disrupt your flight?

 

And that's one example of what must go into D.  And if you can't give me any information about that one example, how can you say that D is so small that we can say it is essentially 0?

 

I can't prove this is a simulation.  You can't prove that it isn't.  I don't think you can even really provide evidence that it isn't.  I did provide evidence that it is in the other thread (where I originally made these same points to you by asking you the first question and the answers from my perspective days ago).

 

If you want to possitively assert that the probability of the second question is close to 0, it is up to you to provide evidence of that (see the wiki pages YOU posted in the other thread of burden of proof and science only disproving things with respect to both of the statements above).

[alexey]

...

If you can't tell me much of anything about the probability that this is a simulation, how can you tell me anything about the probability that they simulators won't do something to disrupt your flight?

...

Let me try to summarise here and hopefully change the track.

The only thing I am telling you is that I am not taking the simulation possibility seriously and therefore I am not taking its probability into consideration.

I see these ways for you to argue that I am using faith:

1) claim that I am using faith when refusing to include some conceivable possibilitie in the probability calculus.

2) claim that I must include every conceivable possiblility in the probability calculus, thus taking a stand on it.

I disagree with both of these. Frankly the second one seems more absurd to me... Paradoxically that is the route you seem to have picked.

[PeterMP]

You seem to be cutting and pasting at this point.

The only thing I am telling you is that I am not taking the simulation possibility seriously and therefore I am not taking its probability into consideration.

I see these ways for you to argue that I am using faith:

1) claim that I am using faith when refusing to include unknown things in the probability calculus.

2) claim that I must include every conceivable thing in the probability calculus.

I disagree with both of these. Frankly the second one seems more absurd to me... Paradoxically that is the route you seem to have picked.

 

By not taking it seriously, is that any different than positively asserting the probability is close to 0?