Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can "confidence in what we hope for"
and an "assurance about what we do not see"
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[John17_3]

The idea that every investigation must follow the scientific method is not reasonable.

You are not just incorrect, you are perfectly, exactly 180 wrong.

'Reasonable' may be determined by the fact that reason and science worked together to produce the intellectual movement that emphasized the use of logic, empirical evidence, and rational thought to understand the world instead of 'faith.' 'Faith' is, by definition, not reasonable.

'Faith' is the acceptance of a belief not based upon empirical evidence, logic, and rational thought.
Instead, "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
This is the opposite of evidence, the opposite of rational thought based upon empirical evidence.

Thank you for getting back to the topic.
Where does your definition of faith come from?
I prefer to use the original word usage. "Faith is the hupostasis of things hoped for, the elegchos of things not seen."

It is not the opposite of evidence, but rather the guarantee, substance, reality of what may not be seen, as it is build up/made of proof/evidence of such realities.

Evidence is all around us. How that evidence is interpreted, though, is often the difference.
Science cannot tell you why this world seems out of control, but the Bible does, and the evidence for the Bible being true, can be seen.
Faith, is indeed built by evidence. One who has faith, has evidence. Faith does not exist apart from evidence - faith as defined in the Bible, that is.

The idea that every investigation must follow the scientific method is not reasonable, and this is actually a fact, since there are Limitations of the Scientific Method
Due to the need to have completely controlled experiments to test a hypothesis, science can not prove everything. For example, ideas about God and other supernatural beings can never be confirmed or denied, as no experiment exists that could test their presence. Supporters of Intelligent Design attempt to convey their beliefs as scientific, but nonetheless the scientific method can never prove this. Science is meant to give us a better understanding of the mysteries of the the natural world, by refuting previous hypotheses, and the existence of supernatural beings lies outside of science all together. Another limitation of the scientific method is when it comes making judgements about whether certain scientific phenomenons are "good" or "bad". For example, the scientific method cannot alone say that global warming is bad or harmful to the world, as it can only study the objective causes and consequences. Furthermore, science cannot answer questions about morality, as scientific results lay out of the scope of cultural, religious and social influences.

Do you believe in Abiogenesis?
The transition from non-life to life has never been observed experimentally, but many proposals have been made for different stages of the process.
What does it require for you to believe it, if you do?

What people refer to as Pseudo-Science today, can be Science tomorrow.
The Scientific Method: A Need for Something Better?

• Not all hypotheses are proved by empirical testing
• Conversely, the deep thinkers in the non-natural disciplines see many things wrong with the scientific method because it does not entirely reflect the chaotic environment that we live in - that is, the scientific method is rigid and constrained in its design and produces results that are isolated from real environments and that only address specific issues.
• In medicine, bias is also a part of conflict of interest and produces corrupt results. In medicine, conflict of interest is often due to relationships with the pharmaceutical/device industries.
• Despite its rigid structure, the scientific method still depends on the most human capabilities: creativity, imagination, and intelligence; and without these, it cannot exist.
• Documentation of experiments is always flawed because everything cannot be recorded.
• One of the most significant problems with the scientific method is the lack of importance placed on observations that lie outside of the main hypothesis (related to lateral thinking).
  No matter how carefully you record what you observe, if these observations are not also submitted to the method, they cannot be accepted. This is a common problem found by paleontologists who really have no way of testing their observations; yet many of their observations (primary and secondary) are accepted as valid.
• Also, think about the works of Sigmund Freud that led to improved understanding of psychological development and related disorders; most were based just on observations. Many argue that because the scientific method discards observations extemporaneous to it, this actually limits the growth of scientific knowledge. Because a hypothesis only reflects current knowledge, data that contradict it may be discarded only to later become important.
  ...

[bluegreenearth]

The idea that every investigation must follow the scientific method is not reasonable, and this is actually a fact, since there are Limitations of the Scientific Method
Due to the need to have completely controlled experiments to test a hypothesis, science can not prove everything. For example, ideas about God and other supernatural beings can never be confirmed or denied, as no experiment exists that could test their presence. Supporters of Intelligent Design attempt to convey their beliefs as scientific, but nonetheless the scientific method can never prove this. Science is meant to give us a better understanding of the mysteries of the the natural world, by refuting previous hypotheses, and the existence of supernatural beings lies outside of science all together. Another limitation of the scientific method is when it comes making judgements about whether certain scientific phenomenons are "good" or "bad". For example, the scientific method cannot alone say that global warming is bad or harmful to the world, as it can only study the objective causes and consequences. Furthermore, science cannot answer questions about morality, as scientific results lay out of the scope of cultural, religious and social influences.

The reason science does not prove anything is because any attempt to prove a claim is true invites the possibility of confirmation bias. For this reason, science only attempts to disprove falsifiable hypotheses. Yes, this imposes limitations on what scientists can reasonably infer about reality but with a defensible justification for avoiding the unfalsifiable speculations that unscientific methods of investigation might be tempted to defend with logically fallacious arguments.

• Not all hypotheses are proved by empirical testing

Again, no hypotheses are proved by empirical testing. Falsifiable hypotheses are tested to determine if they are false, not to prove they are absolutely true because the possibility of confirmation bias makes that outcome impossible. At best, by demonstrating a falsifiable hypothesis is not false, the scientist acquires a justification to tentatively accept it as the most reasonable explanation until such a time (if ever) new evidence is discovered that disproves it.

• One of the most significant problems with the scientific method is the lack of importance placed on observations that lie outside of the main hypothesis (related to lateral thinking).
  No matter how carefully you record what you observe, if these observations are not also submitted to the method, they cannot be accepted. This is a common problem found by paleontologists who really have no way of testing their observations; yet many of their observations (primary and secondary) are accepted as valid.

Read information on the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae to learn how paleontologists tested their falsifiable hypothesis by predicting how old that fossil should be and where on the planet it should be found before they discovered it in reality. Had the paleontologists discovered the fossil of something like a modern bird or monkey at that precise location, their hypothesis would have been falsified.

Note: Unfortunately, the linked article about Tiktaalik includes the following statement that could be misinterpreted: "Scientists used evolution to make a testable prediction that turned out to be true." Many science communicators still use the word "true" in a colloquial sense which does not accurately convey the reality that nothing is proven true in science as previously explained. The proper interpretation is that this particular prediction failed to disprove the proposed falsifiable hypothesis.

[John17_3]

The idea that every investigation must follow the scientific method is not reasonable, and this is actually a fact, since there are Limitations of the Scientific Method
Due to the need to have completely controlled experiments to test a hypothesis, science can not prove everything. For example, ideas about God and other supernatural beings can never be confirmed or denied, as no experiment exists that could test their presence. Supporters of Intelligent Design attempt to convey their beliefs as scientific, but nonetheless the scientific method can never prove this. Science is meant to give us a better understanding of the mysteries of the the natural world, by refuting previous hypotheses, and the existence of supernatural beings lies outside of science all together. Another limitation of the scientific method is when it comes making judgements about whether certain scientific phenomenons are "good" or "bad". For example, the scientific method cannot alone say that global warming is bad or harmful to the world, as it can only study the objective causes and consequences. Furthermore, science cannot answer questions about morality, as scientific results lay out of the scope of cultural, religious and social influences.

The reason science does not prove anything is because any attempt to prove a claim is true invites the possibility of confirmation bias. For this reason, science only attempts to disprove falsifiable hypotheses. Yes, this imposes limitations on what scientists can reasonably infer about reality but with a defensible justification for avoiding the unfalsifiable speculations that unscientific methods of investigation might be tempted to defend with logically fallacious arguments.

• Not all hypotheses are proved by empirical testing

Again, no hypotheses are proved by empirical testing. Falsifiable hypotheses are tested to determine if they are false, not to prove they are absolutely true because the possibility of confirmation bias makes that outcome impossible. At best, by demonstrating a falsifiable hypothesis is not false, the scientist acquires a justification to tentatively accept it as the most reasonable explanation until such a time (if ever) new evidence is discovered that disproves it.

• One of the most significant problems with the scientific method is the lack of importance placed on observations that lie outside of the main hypothesis (related to lateral thinking).
  No matter how carefully you record what you observe, if these observations are not also submitted to the method, they cannot be accepted. This is a common problem found by paleontologists who really have no way of testing their observations; yet many of their observations (primary and secondary) are accepted as valid.

Read information on the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae to learn how paleontologists tested their falsifiable hypothesis by predicting how old that fossil should be and where on the planet it should be found before they discovered it in reality. Had the paleontologists discovered the fossil of something like a modern bird or monkey at that precise location, their hypothesis would have been falsified.

Note: Unfortunately, the linked article about Tiktaalik includes the following statement that could be misinterpreted: "Scientists used evolution to make a testable prediction that turned out to be true." Many science communicators still use the word "true" in a colloquial sense which does not accurately convey the reality that nothing is proven true in science as previously explained. The proper interpretation is that this particular prediction failed to disprove the proposed falsifiable hypothesis.

In my experience of reading science journals and articles, I don't think everyone is clear on what science is, and what science does, and does not do, because some say it proves nothing; some says it proves stuff; some say it only disproves hypotheses; some say it proves hypotheses...
Anyway, that is a different topic all together.

[bluegreenearth]

In my experience of reading science journals and articles, I don't think everyone is clear on what science is, and what science does, and does not do, because some say it proves nothing; some says it proves stuff; some say it only disproves hypotheses; some say it proves hypotheses...
Anyway, that is a different topic all together.

Then you should remember your own statement above before setting out to criticize a misinterpreted version of the scientific method as if it was the universal standard in use by all scientists.

[John17_3]

In my experience of reading science journals and articles, I don't think everyone is clear on what science is, and what science does, and does not do, because some say it proves nothing; some says it proves stuff; some say it only disproves hypotheses; some say it proves hypotheses...
Anyway, that is a different topic all together.

Then you should remember your own statement above before setting out to criticize a misinterpreted version of the scientific method as if it was the universal standard in use by all scientists.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please elaborate on what "misinterpreted version of the scientific method" I have criticized.

[bluegreenearth]

In my experience of reading science journals and articles, I don't think everyone is clear on what science is, and what science does, and does not do, because some say it proves nothing; some says it proves stuff; some say it only disproves hypotheses; some say it proves hypotheses...
Anyway, that is a different topic all together.

Then you should remember your own statement above before setting out to criticize a misinterpreted version of the scientific method as if it was the universal standard in use by all scientists.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please elaborate on what "misinterpreted version of the scientific method" I have criticized.

See below:

What people refer to as Pseudo-Science today, can be Science tomorrow.
The Scientific Method: A Need for Something Better?

• Not all hypotheses are proved by empirical testing
• Conversely, the deep thinkers in the non-natural disciplines see many things wrong with the scientific method because it does not entirely reflect the chaotic environment that we live in - that is, the scientific method is rigid and constrained in its design and produces results that are isolated from real environments and that only address specific issues.
• In medicine, bias is also a part of conflict of interest and produces corrupt results. In medicine, conflict of interest is often due to relationships with the pharmaceutical/device industries.
• Despite its rigid structure, the scientific method still depends on the most human capabilities: creativity, imagination, and intelligence; and without these, it cannot exist.
• Documentation of experiments is always flawed because everything cannot be recorded.
• One of the most significant problems with the scientific method is the lack of importance placed on observations that lie outside of the main hypothesis (related to lateral thinking).
  No matter how carefully you record what you observe, if these observations are not also submitted to the method, they cannot be accepted. This is a common problem found by paleontologists who really have no way of testing their observations; yet many of their observations (primary and secondary) are accepted as valid.
• Also, think about the works of Sigmund Freud that led to improved understanding of psychological development and related disorders; most were based just on observations. Many argue that because the scientific method discards observations extemporaneous to it, this actually limits the growth of scientific knowledge. Because a hypothesis only reflects current knowledge, data that contradict it may be discarded only to later become important.
  ...

[John17_3]

In my experience of reading science journals and articles, I don't think everyone is clear on what science is, and what science does, and does not do, because some say it proves nothing; some says it proves stuff; some say it only disproves hypotheses; some say it proves hypotheses...
Anyway, that is a different topic all together.

Then you should remember your own statement above before setting out to criticize a misinterpreted version of the scientific method as if it was the universal standard in use by all scientists.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please elaborate on what "misinterpreted version of the scientific method" I have criticized.

See below:

What people refer to as Pseudo-Science today, can be Science tomorrow.
The Scientific Method: A Need for Something Better?

• Not all hypotheses are proved by empirical testing
• Conversely, the deep thinkers in the non-natural disciplines see many things wrong with the scientific method because it does not entirely reflect the chaotic environment that we live in - that is, the scientific method is rigid and constrained in its design and produces results that are isolated from real environments and that only address specific issues.
• In medicine, bias is also a part of conflict of interest and produces corrupt results. In medicine, conflict of interest is often due to relationships with the pharmaceutical/device industries.
• Despite its rigid structure, the scientific method still depends on the most human capabilities: creativity, imagination, and intelligence; and without these, it cannot exist.
• Documentation of experiments is always flawed because everything cannot be recorded.
• One of the most significant problems with the scientific method is the lack of importance placed on observations that lie outside of the main hypothesis (related to lateral thinking).
  No matter how carefully you record what you observe, if these observations are not also submitted to the method, they cannot be accepted. This is a common problem found by paleontologists who really have no way of testing their observations; yet many of their observations (primary and secondary) are accepted as valid.
• Also, think about the works of Sigmund Freud that led to improved understanding of psychological development and related disorders; most were based just on observations. Many argue that because the scientific method discards observations extemporaneous to it, this actually limits the growth of scientific knowledge. Because a hypothesis only reflects current knowledge, data that contradict it may be discarded only to later become important.
  ...

I do not see a "misinterpreted version of the scientific method", but if it is your view that the authors points are false, please specify which points are false, and produce the papers that demonstrate that they are false.

Also, if you do not mind telling me, please explain why the subject of faith has become a discussion on the scientific method, because I don't feel comfortable going against forum rules, which says start a new thread, if discussing another subject.

[TRANSPONDER]

In my experience of reading science journals and articles, I don't think everyone is clear on what science is, and what science does, and does not do, because some say it proves nothing; some says it proves stuff; some say it only disproves hypotheses; some say it proves hypotheses...
Anyway, that is a different topic all together.

Then you should remember your own statement above before setting out to criticize a misinterpreted version of the scientific method as if it was the universal standard in use by all scientists.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please elaborate on what "misinterpreted version of the scientific method" I have criticized.

See below:

What people refer to as Pseudo-Science today, can be Science tomorrow.
The Scientific Method: A Need for Something Better?

• Not all hypotheses are proved by empirical testing
• Conversely, the deep thinkers in the non-natural disciplines see many things wrong with the scientific method because it does not entirely reflect the chaotic environment that we live in - that is, the scientific method is rigid and constrained in its design and produces results that are isolated from real environments and that only address specific issues.
• In medicine, bias is also a part of conflict of interest and produces corrupt results. In medicine, conflict of interest is often due to relationships with the pharmaceutical/device industries.
• Despite its rigid structure, the scientific method still depends on the most human capabilities: creativity, imagination, and intelligence; and without these, it cannot exist.
• Documentation of experiments is always flawed because everything cannot be recorded.
• One of the most significant problems with the scientific method is the lack of importance placed on observations that lie outside of the main hypothesis (related to lateral thinking).
  No matter how carefully you record what you observe, if these observations are not also submitted to the method, they cannot be accepted. This is a common problem found by paleontologists who really have no way of testing their observations; yet many of their observations (primary and secondary) are accepted as valid.
• Also, think about the works of Sigmund Freud that led to improved understanding of psychological development and related disorders; most were based just on observations. Many argue that because the scientific method discards observations extemporaneous to it, this actually limits the growth of scientific knowledge. Because a hypothesis only reflects current knowledge, data that contradict it may be discarded only to later become important.
  ...

I do not see a "misinterpreted version of the scientific method", but if it is your view that the authors points are false, please specify which points are false, and produce the papers that demonstrate that they are false.

Also, if you do not mind telling me, please explain why the subject of faith has become a discussion on the scientific method, because I don't feel comfortable going against forum rules, which says start a new thread, if discussing another subject.

I do, if not a deliberate attempt to smear the scientific method as untrustworthy.

I suspect that, if not an agenda - driven effort to discredit science - an all too common agenda in the US today, it is misunderstanding science. It is imperfect and revised conclusions all the time. That is understood and is a strength, especially over dogmas that will not change even when debunked.

The nod to the paid bias of medical research is particularly suspicious as it as a blinkered smear in one direction, point taken - proper medical research has at times taken paid research to task for being partial. This is nothing to do with scientific medical research which even if it is biased with a desire to claim a discovery, gets peer - reviewed.

Do I need go on? I think that article is a rather shoddy piece of work if not actually a deliberate anti - science smear.

[bluegreenearth]

I do not see a "misinterpreted version of the scientific method", but if it is your view that the authors points are false, please specify which points are false, and produce the papers that demonstrate that they are false.

Also, if you do not mind telling me, please explain why the subject of faith has become a discussion on the scientific method, because I don't feel comfortable going against forum rules, which says start a new thread, if discussing another subject.

Transponder was kind enough to provide a sufficient response on my behalf in post #338.

[TRANSPONDER]

I do not see a "misinterpreted version of the scientific method", but if it is your view that the authors points are false, please specify which points are false, and produce the papers that demonstrate that they are false.

Also, if you do not mind telling me, please explain why the subject of faith has become a discussion on the scientific method, because I don't feel comfortable going against forum rules, which says start a new thread, if discussing another subject.

Transponder was kind enough to provide a sufficient response on my behalf in post #338.

Just tell me where to send the bill, I take dollars, Euros or Bitcoin. Not which is accepted nowhere outside the UK.