Faith in Science

[Illyricum]

Can we really put are faith in science? Can we trust everything it says?

[ENIGMA]

Can we really put are faith in science?

No, we test it constantly.

Faith is a construct solely for those belief systems that dare not risk such scrutiny.

Should any significant portion of modern scientific theories become consistantly shown to be false, then those who set up the demonstative experiment to show it false are likely in the running to recieve a Nobel prize for their discovery.

What would I win should I demonstrate Christianity to be false?

Can we trust everything it says?

It depends.

Can you trust a person to guide you through a minefield if they have successfully traversed it many times before and have yet to be blown up?

Or would you prefer to "have faith" that an ancient map of the region would effectively direct you to the correct path through the field?

I would prefer the former, personally.

Watch your step.

[The Hungry Atheist]

Science shouldn't really involve having 'faith'. Science involves looking at things around us, testing them, performing experiments and thinking about stuff, to determine what seems most likely to be true based on available evidence. The theory of gravity seems pretty likely to be true, based on what we observe of falling objects and orbiting planets, and other such trajectories. Nobody's actually seen a graviton, which is the theoretical particle thought by some to cause gravitational force, but this doesn't mean that those who believe the theory of gravity to be true must have 'faith' in it. The evidence in favour is relatively conclusive, and is certainly the most likely option based on current knowledge and understanding.

This is how science works. It's often been wrong, but it has the ability to improve itself, which it does constantly, as our knowledge and ability to test and re-test and formulate new theories increases.

[otseng]

The theory of gravity seems pretty likely to be true, based on what we observe of falling objects and orbiting planets, and other such trajectories. Nobody's actually seen a graviton, which is the theoretical particle thought by some to cause gravitational force, but this doesn't mean that those who believe the theory of gravity to be true must have 'faith' in it.

It depends on how one defines "faith".

Sure, we can understand the effects of gravity, but nobody knows how it works or why it works. What exactly causes two masses to exert some force between them? Nobody knows. That sounds a little bit like faith to me. That is, it is totally beyond our understanding.

Or what about the other 3 forces of nature: electromagneticism, strong force, and weak force? What exactly are they? Nobody knows. We again can describe their effects, but nobody knows what constitutes them.

Will someday some theoretical physicist come with the unifying theory? Possibly. But, as of today, our understanding of them is beyond science. Perhaps it even dwells in the realm of faith.

[The Hungry Atheist]

It depends on how one defines "faith".

Yes, that's true, and many scientists could be said to have faith in a number of scientific theories, for certain values of 'faith'. But when you say, a couple of times...

Nobody knows.

...you're absolutely right. This is, I believe, another strength of science, that it can admit gaps in knowledge, because our capacity for understanding and knowledge is limited. Science can say, "We don't know this", but doesn't ask us to be happy with this answer, and encourages further investigation, questioning, and doubt.

As you say, nobody knows why objects exert a gravitational force on each other, to my knowledge. But we can be pretty sure they can, because we see it happening constantly, we can observe it directly, and we can formulate theories which predict the way that objects will act under this force pretty accurately. Could these scientific ideas be wrong? Sure; the question should certainly be asked, "What if we're wrong, and matter doesn't exert forces in the way we currently think?" But any alternative explanations are hugely complicated, speculative, and unlikely - at least, any alternative explanations I've heard proposed are. So our current theories seem most likely to be true, based on current knowledge.

This could be read as requiring a degree of faith in one's theories, but again it depends on your definition. It seems to me to be sensible to place most trust in what seems most likely.

[ST88]

It depends on how one defines "faith".

Sure, we can understand the effects of gravity, but nobody knows how it works or why it works. What exactly causes two masses to exert some force between them? Nobody knows. That sounds a little bit like faith to me. That is, it is totally beyond our understanding.

Or what about the other 3 forces of nature: electromagneticism, strong force, and weak force? What exactly are they? Nobody knows. We again can describe their effects, but nobody knows what constitutes them.

Will someday some theoretical physicist come with the unifying theory? Possibly. But, as of today, our understanding of them is beyond science. Perhaps it even dwells in the realm of faith.

I disagree with how you have framed your answer. We do not require an explanation of the inner workings of the graviton or warped space or micro-spinning particles -- or whatever it is that makes gravity work the way it does -- in order to understand and predict its effects. Regardless of how it works, we can study the metrics of it (falling object equations, push vs. pull, drag vs. lift, etc.) and come up with our theories and predictions.

And regardless of what we may find out about exactly what causes gravity, it will still be gravity. The only faith involved, if you like, is the faith that the rock will fall to the ground when I let go of it. I can predict the event based on past empirical observation, and this is what science means.

I reject the notion that "our understanding of gravity is beyond science". Pish tosh. Our understanding of gravity is science. That science has not actually found a graviton has nothing to do with faith, it has to do with hypothesis. The difference is similar to the difference between "hope" and "expectation". Faith and hope are pejorative -- they have the flavor of an attachment that borders on the emotional. Hypothesis implies dispassionate observation.

Look at the difference between these two statements:
1) I have faith that gravitons exist.
2) I hypothesize that gravitons exist.

In statement 1, we have a researcher that will try to fit data that is found to a graviton model. The graviton model is assumed and any set of observations can be explained by it. In statement 2, we have a researcher that is in the process of trying to find out if the graviton model is correct. The graviton model is tested with every set of observations made. This is the difference between science and religious science.

[otseng]

We do not require an explanation of the inner workings of the graviton or warped space or micro-spinning particles -- or whatever it is that makes gravity work the way it does -- in order to understand and predict its effects.

Of course we don't require an understanding of the "why" to understand and believe in science.

But I find it very interesting that in the realm of religion people stress the point of understanding the "why" in order to accept the "what". Why does God send people to hell? Why does God allow suffering? And because people can't understand the "why", they don't accept the "what". Yet in science, the "what" is readily accepted even though the "why" remains elusive.

I reject the notion that "our understanding of gravity is beyond science".

Let me rephrase it to be clear of my meaning. Our understanding of what causes gravity is beyond science.

[dangerdan]

Of course we don't require an understanding of the "why" to understand and believe in science.

Yeah, I don’t know Otseng. I think you are taking a very very stringent and skeptical view of knowledge (which I suppose in some aspects is good). That is, you seem to be alluding to a view that we never really understand much of value in science. I hope I am interpreting this wrong. Also the term “belief in science” seems to carry nuances of absolute certainty, which are absent in anything that could be termed “scientific”.

But I find it very interesting that in the realm of religion people stress the point of understanding the "why" in order to accept the "what". Why does God send people to hell? Why does God allow suffering? And because people can't understand the "why", they don't accept the "what".

Hmmm, I think that is a bit of a big generalization. I think people are far more likely to hold an irrational view in a religious topic than they are an irrational view in a scientific topic. This website is a bit of an exception I think. But generally, religion values irrationality. “Just have faith” and “Just believe, like children do” seem reoccurring themes in the bible (however there are exceptions). Faith and infallible doctrines are more prevalent in, say, Christianity than they are in a chemistry lab.

Yet in science, the "what" is readily accepted even though the "why" remains elusive

Yeah, I can see the point you are making, and I agree it is interesting. But what you are highlighting (with gravitons, etc) are aspects that are described in the unsurprisingly named area of science - “Theoretical physics”. So obviously much of what it deals with is hypothesis and assumptions and can’t be empirically seen directly. But, what is of most importance, is that science makes clear what assumptions are made and welcomes criticism to help flush out error, especially in theoretical physics.

I think your “why” is very very broad. I would say a valuable amount of the “why” has already been captured in rational explanations in science. How much “why” there is to go?…well that is, by definition, unknown. But with humility, I can see your point. A scientific theory that hypothesizes that “gravitons exist” is just a theory and exists nowhere else but our minds. It’s a tool….sort of.

[otseng]

I think you are taking a very very stringent and skeptical view of knowledge (which I suppose in some aspects is good).

Is it bad to be classified as a skeptic?

That is, you seem to be alluding to a view that we never really understand much of value in science. I hope I am interpreting this wrong. Also the term “belief in science” seems to carry nuances of absolute certainty, which are absent in anything that could be termed “scientific”.

Let me be clear in that I highly value science. I only say that there is a limit to what science can explain.

But generally, religion values irrationality.

I would say that also is a bit of a generalization. I wouldn't say religion per se values irrationality. I would however agree that religious people as a group are irrational. But, because religious people are irrational, it doesn't mean that religion values irrationality.

Faith and infallible doctrines are more prevalent in, say, Christianity than they are in a chemistry lab.

I don't want to carry the comparison between science and religion too far. Each has their own framework in which they operate. I agree that faith is more prevalent in religion than in science.

I would say a valuable amount of the “why” has already been captured in rational explanations in science.

At the fundamental level, I feel there remains a large amount of questions with unknown answers. And probably some of which we will never know the answers to.

What exactly are the four forces?
What exactly is energy?
What exactly is matter?
What causes time?
What is life?
How exactly did life come about?
Who killed JFK?

[ST88]

We do not require an explanation of the inner workings of the graviton or warped space or micro-spinning particles -- or whatever it is that makes gravity work the way it does -- in order to understand and predict its effects.

Of course we don't require an understanding of the "why" to understand and believe in science.

But I find it very interesting that in the realm of religion people stress the point of understanding the "why" in order to accept the "what". Why does God send people to hell? Why does God allow suffering? And because people can't understand the "why", they don't accept the "what". Yet in science, the "what" is readily accepted even though the "why" remains elusive.

I see what you're getting at. But you speak of science as if it were set down somewhere in a book where everything is perfectly true. The point is not that the "why" is not understood. The point is that there have been many thousands of pieces of the way the universe works that we, at one time, did not understand. And many people thought that the unknown would always be unknown and that's where we would find God. But science gave us the answers. And where science does not currently have answers, many people choose to believe that's where we will find God.

The disagreement I have with Christian religions is not that the "why" is elusive, but that it is actively discouraged. In my posts about the purpose of God's plan, and the motivation of God for doing what he does, I have often made the argument that God is so far above man that man's laws and systems of ethics do not apply. And not only do they not apply, we do not even have an effective analogy to describe what set of laws and ethics actually do apply. At the end of the day, the God of Christianity has set up his system so that the "why" will never be known, no matter how hard we look.

As for science, it's not even that it's necessary to have "faith" that science will provide an answer to life's material questions. It's that the structure of science is such that answers are inevitable. Faith is irrelevant. Science isn't even a competing belief system. They aren't even answers, in the religious sense of "answer". Proofs are for mathematicians and theoreticists, but hypotheses are for experimenters. Science doesn't need answers, in this sense, to move forward, just supporting facts and evidence. Religion is based on things that we can't perceive or measure affecting the things that we can. Science wants no part of that. We will never be able to measure or perceive something that is metaphysical. However, that science cannot currently measure or perceive many things has nothing to do with an intrinsic unattainable quality of these things, it has to do with the calibration of our measuring instruments

I reject the notion that "our understanding of gravity is beyond science".

Let me rephrase it to be clear of my meaning. Our understanding of what causes gravity is beyond science.

It is clear. I still reject it. Science has not yet given us a clear picture about how gravity works. We may just be kerfuffling on the word "beyond". Currently, we do not know how gravity works. But that doesn't mean there isn't a scientific answer that we will be able to find someday.