Science is not 'Faith' (Trust) Based

This thread is directly responding to this one (so that I don't derail that one):

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Jediism/105759-jediism-and-faith#132321



In this instance it appears that the definition of faith they are using is 'trust'.

Science is not faith based. Science is not trust based. Allow me to explain why...

Science is a method that we have constructed to explore nature. Once we discover something we do not have 'trust' in it we take it as given that it is true. There is a reason why. (It will get a little technical)

In Descartes 'Meditations' he considers the idea that there is a demon causing him to doubt everything in existence. How does we know that the world is as we sense it? Couldn't a demon be tricking me into seeing these things and hearing those things?*1 Couldn't a demon be tricking me into thinking that everyone is lying to me, that the history books are all wrong?

You see this 'trust' that you are not being deceived is not a scientific concept but a philosophical one -a metaphysical one to be exact.

Pluto has an orbit that takes just under 250 years to orbit the sun. Do we therefore 'trust' that pluto will take that long to orbit the sun? No. We take it as a given truth, because all of our investigations lead to this conclusion.

In logic you have deduction and induction.

Deduction:
Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is mortal.

Deduction is a priori.

Induction:
That swan is white.
That swan is white
All swans are white.

‘A progression from particulars to a universal’ (Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, 4th cent. BC).

Induction is a posteriori. That means that it comes from experience. We infer from a limited number of X to all X.

Science is based on induction and on the underlying principle of 'Universal Conformity of Nature'.

‘What happens once, will, under a sufficient degree of similarity of circumstances, will happen again. This is an assumption involved in every case of induction’, ‘the general axiom of Induction’ - John Stuart Mill

That is the basis that science works off of -not 'trust'.

Science, as I said, is a construct that we have created and it is built on some given truths. For example the axiom that nature is uniform. It is also built on the systems of logic (induction and, the mathematics that it uses, deduction).

You can argue that, metaphysically, the scientists must have accepted that there instruments are not faulty or that they are not being lied to, that some 'demon' is not ultimately deceiving them, but placing doubt in things like this is only done by the philosopher, not the scientist

Metaphysics -'before physics'- is what we use to discuss the foundations of truths, but science is built upon it's own given truths - thereby making everything it creates true as a result. Maths is exactly the same. Show me a 'Number 1' particle. Maths does not exist in nature. It is a human construct that is based on a set of axioms and we use it to help describe what we see in nature. But anything within maths is true in the mathematical construct. Anything scientific is true in the scientific construct. You can decide whether or not the premises/axioms mathematics uses are true or not but 'true' in what sense? True as in they describe what you see.

You can choose to use the scientific construct to understand nature or you can choose not to use it. You don't 'trust' that it works, you see whether it is beneficial to use, does it describe nature or not, and then do or don't use it.

*1 From which he ultimately comes up with the idea that the only thing he can be sure of is that 'I am a thinking thing therefore I exist.' - which is more philosophically correct than 'I think therefore I am.' which is where that term comes from.


It's late... 3am, I hope this explains the subject accurately enough! lol

Trust in the axiom? OK I'll reread it :lol:

Akkarin wrote: Science is not faith based. Science is not trust based.

It both is and it isn't.

I could try to bumble around and explain it, but let me quote a teensy section first:


And that's why I always draw a distinction between science (the neutral process itself, helping us to understand the universe), and Science (as told to me by a group of fallible human beings based on our tenuous grasp on what we believe to be the fabric of reality).

The method itself, much like Logic, may be completely flawless, but it's still being interpreted by human beings, in whom we must place trust that they understand what they're talking about better than we do, and who we must trust have no ulterior motives.

Akkarin wrote: Pluto has an orbit that takes just under 250 years to orbit the sun. Do we therefore 'trust' that pluto will take that long to orbit the sun? No. We take it as a given truth, because all of our investigations lead to this conclusion.

It wasn't long ago that science called Pluto a planet, and our solar system had nine planets. Now, Pluto is not a planet, and our solar system only has eight planets. We trusted scientists when they said Pluto is a planet, then they changed their definition of planet, and Pluto was no more. So, science is not the end all fact, as those facts can change over time. You can't pin your beliefs on scientific fact, as you must have faith that the scientific fact is complete, and that there is no other alternative that will come to light later down the road when technology becomes more advanced.

Even though I'm a bit off-topic, I want to append a small side-note to Akkarin's assertion. Yes, science is not faith-based. Science is black-and-white, and deals in facts/certainties. If a previously held belief is wrong, science corrects itself and adopts the new revelation without neither pride nor humility.

In practice, many "facts" supported by science are a serious case of denial, so bad that they rival creationism in this regard. Today, at least in the West, science is subject to political correctness. Race and IQ? Off-limits for discussion, and the assumption is made that race has no biological reality, because this is what political correctness requires. Out-of-Africa theory has been seriously challenged (long story short, it's more likely that ethnic Europeans are mostly Neanderthal and only share a small bit of common ancestry with Africans), but it can't be challenged in the mainstream.

Science is based in reality and evidence. But be wary of "science" that is motivated by politics, ideology, or any external force.

I may also be off topic . . or maybe not? :dry: Or maybe this belongs in the other thread :dry:

Descartes did an experiment in which he held only one premise to be true: I think therefore I am.
To which he raised every thought of doubt***

After doing this simple test with every thought of doubt, he was able to accept everything without a doubt exactly as it is.

****I am having faith here that Akkarin or any Descartes Jedi will correct me, if I did not correctly state the experiment.

In my experience of Descartes' experiment, reality was redefined.

I can't call myself a scientist yet because I haven't finished my degree ,but I work with real scientist at a research university and I'm always shocked to learn how little people understand something that they owe their very lives too.

So let's begin,

StarForge: I don't know any subject that is off limits or not studied or looked at seriously in academic journals. I think you're thinking of magazines or something. If I'm wrong can you list some of the academic journals you read and I'll check on them. The concept of tenure was invented to make sure nothing is ever off limits.

Kaverael, science deals in facts and theories, the concept of a planet is neither in the same way that being Fat is neither a fact nor theory. What happened to Pluto was they redefined what a planet was in the same way you could redefine what being fat is. Being a planet is an opinion not a fact the change was due to discovering more information about rocks that orbit the sun and deciding the Pluto was more similar to other balls of matter then the other 8 balls of matter that orbit the sun.

Steamboat, What that refers to is favoritism toward theories which does happen. Science is much like pop culture. For example almost all scientist believe in gravity. Gravity is just a theory because we can not directly detect gravity with our five senses we can only see its effects. If someone said gravity wasn’t real most scientist would probably dismiss that person as an idiot. That’s because not all theories are equally credible and to think that all theories should be credible would waste an enormous amount of time and we would never get anywhere. Does that mean scientist could be wrong about everything? No facts are still facts. An object falls to the ground (on earth without wind resistance) at a velocity = -9.81 m/s^2 that is fact.
Does this mean we shouldn’t trust scientist then about their theories? No, scientists are some of our smartest people who spend their entire lives looking at studies and conducting research in their respective fields along with other equally great minded people looking at his work. When a theory gets disproven it gets disproven by other scientists and not by some average guy who had a hunch about something.

Well since this is in direct response to me - allow me to present an opposing view.

Science is built off the Scientific Method. At least it has been since we stop taking everything off of Blind Faith. So how can Science require Faith, if it is directly made to counter-act it? I am glad you asked. It has faith as a basis (ergo my lingo faith based). How so? It is established fact Opie. Well not at first my eager young student.

We take Einstein's work - did you know there was a point of doubt in his theories? But if science is fact - how can doubt exist? Easy enough when you look at the steps science seeks to take.
First we observe our world. From there a question pops into our mind. Does gravity effect the orbit of the planets? We consider the problem and use previous established knowledge to form an answer. We then consider how that answer can be. This we label a Hypothesis. At this point we have taken two things on faith. That the established knowledge is viable and that our hypothesis is correct. Both of these we have strong indications to support our assumption and have our faith rewarded, but we do not truly know - not yet.
From there we branch out into experiments, testing, retesting, multiple experiments with multiple variables. Seeking to conclusively prove our theory correct through recordable repeatable results. Thus Factual Evidence. From dictionary.com to simplify this: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Not enough? Cool deal my fine young friend. Lets move on to point number two - Science Being Faith Based. To say it is not would be to work from the assumption that science knows all. You can say it doesn't require trust, but it does. From trusting our sense, to trusting previous held standards, to being sure that nothing can disrupt the foundation on which all previous knowledge is built. To say science is not faith based fails to realize the biggest faith science has that all previous information is correct. Yet we know from experience this is not always the case.

Continually as we advance in science our previous notions are blown away. There are fields of science that have to start all over again. Eisenstein our main man destroyed a lot of Newton's work. Which had the very foundations of Physics shattered. There was a complete need to rethink all of the science. Because previous calculations made based upon that flawed data meant all results thereafter were in fact flawed. Or at least had the potential. Because there was a belief in certain "facts". The Scientific Community had Proven Science disproved. Certainly we can say faith was shaken. That there is an element of blind faith involved in science.

Lets approach another way. The whole concept of Science is seeking the unknown. Discovering new things we had no idea existed before. Making discoveries that shatter the very notion of our preconceived ideas. Changing the every way we look at the world. The God Gene for example. Higgs Boson as another example. Every Scientist is looking for their Newton and Einstein moment take takes what we thought we knew - because we believed without proof (that is just for your dictionary hounds) - and destroys it.

But Opie, we have proof. First, who is we? When was the last time you duplicated the experiment that proved Einstein's Theory on Gravity? We take Science at face-value because there are numbers, results, and pretty charts. There are things we can repeat ourselves. Fun experiments you can do at home to solidify scientific theory. But in reality most of humanity takes Science on Faith. They simply do not have the knowledge and resources to verify the claims made. Thus why so many argue Global Warming and HIV and such.
Second, we have proof on certain things, but not on all things. Still in science certain things are taken on faith. We cannot fully explain them. We do not have a full understanding of them. But we slowly chip away at that unknown. However until we discover the various unknown qualities we are working blind off of assumptions.

So I have gone two ways with this. The first - highlighting that the beginning of every scientific step begins with faith. The second being that unless you yourself can present the recordable repeatable results you are working from an assumed position knowledge. Tying it together by acknowledging that there are many unknowns within science thus a measure of blind leaps must be made. And certain hypothesis made with little but personal belief to support them.

Oooo. Lets end on that note. Go to anyone who believes in God or the Force or any unseen entity and ask why they believe. I am pretty confident 99% of your answers will involved personal experience. Meaning that they have personal knowledge which have helped them form a hypothesis. Many scientists have theories they believe in and cannot yet prove. Quantum Physics is ripe with it. What is the difference? They both work from personal knowledge and experience.

Why is a Hypothesis in God unproven Faith-Based and a Hypothesis in M-Theory unproven not Faith-Based?
My statement stands.

((Edit: As a side-note I'll be addressing that Logic Example later. It is a one-sided look at Logic and even Introductory Logic classes would have provided the reason why it is not a sound example to use. And since I didn't much like my logic classes I look forward to being able to put that knowledge to use.))

Opie Macleod wrote: Why is a Hypothesis in God unproven Faith-Based and a Hypothesis in M-Theory unproven not Faith-Based?
My statement stands.

hypothesis says. . . . based on X OR a set of things (induction) . . . . . I THINK (something) might be true
experimentation proves the theory true or false

blind faith says something is true without proof

Uniformity of nature is a prerequisite to any enterprise of attempting to learn anything about the world. We would expect all of our technology to keep failing at random if God were to play dice and thus as it would be unreliable, we probably would never have come to develop said technology in the first place. The fact planes fly more often than not and the fact they do so more and more reliably as we learn more and more about this seemingly uniform world is a testimony to that said uniformity at least for the timeframes we care about.

Mathematics, and by that I mean the entire enterprise that it is, not just arithmetics, is almost entirely and solely based on the logical absolutes none of which is a human invention and all of which can't help but be true with or without being acknowledged by a mind in that they are self-evident tautologies. The other part that makes math are logical functions, mainly the negation, from which every other gate can be constructed. Negation, too, is implied and included within those axioms. So truth of math is not true just within the mathematical construct. It can actually be applied to reality, and if all parameters are taken into account it has yet to fail even once.
In the same sense, scientific findings are not just true within the scientific construct unless by that construct you mean the one reality all of us share. i couldn't be making that post if findings of science were not applicable beyond science in the same way mathematical truths are applied to produce more mathematical truths. In fact, not only would my computer not exist without the applicability and reliability of science, I would probably not even be alive myself.

Another point of slight disagreement with the original post is in that scientists who indeed follow the method actually do doubt their instruments and senses. Sure, they don't assume any demons, I suppose, but trust in the equipment as a prerequisite to science is a common misconception. The fact that every experiment is being repeated multiple times even before first changes in the environment are made shows that the scientist doesn't trust the first reading she gets. And that is even before the publishing after which the experiment is being replicated by other specialists in the field and repeated multiple times all over again. The method of science is so designed as to eliminate all mistakes in measurement, all biases in the scientists. And as if it were not enough, even after numerous confirmations, the community still remains open to the idea that even their most reliable theory may be inaccurate.
Faith or trust is exactly what science is not about at all. And that is ultimately the reason why it can be trusted so fully as not only the only method of knowledge acquisition that is reliable by a considerable degree that we developed, but in fact the best method to that end that is conceivable for the time being. We can be perfectly confident that any intelligent alien species that came to seek and find useful knowledge about the world it finds itself in is using a method that even by the greatest stretch we would still have to call science and nothing else by our definitions.

Vesha wrote: Kaverael, science deals in facts and theories, the concept of a planet is neither in the same way that being Fat is neither a fact nor theory. What happened to Pluto was they redefined what a planet was in the same way you could redefine what being fat is. Being a planet is an opinion not a fact the change was due to discovering more information about rocks that orbit the sun and deciding the Pluto was more similar to other balls of matter then the other 8 balls of matter that orbit the sun.

Vesha,
The point I was trying to make is that what was once "scientific fact" has been changed based on newer technology, and no longer factual. If that is the case, what else do we accept as "scientific fact", and do we accept it based on faith that the science behind it is complete?

an entirely scientific Weltanschauung is respected

and

the intro to the TotJo doctrine, and
the 8 "Jedi Believe"
are personal world-views that are valued . . or not

it is true. . that . . the tenants, the code, the creed, the teachings, the maxims are not unique to the TotJo or Jedism
yet the purpose, meaning, and application varies based on an invidual's world-view

steamboat28 wrote: draw a distinction between science (the neutral process itself, helping us to understand the universe), and Science

Yes, that is an accurate distinction to make. The noun versus the verb. It's probably a distinction I should have begun with.

Kaverael wrote: It wasn't long ago that science called Pluto a planet, and our solar system had nine planets. Now, Pluto is not a planet, and our solar system only has eight planets. We trusted scientists when they said Pluto is a planet, then they changed their definition of planet, and Pluto was no more. So, science is not the end all fact, as those facts can change over time. You can't pin your beliefs on scientific fact, as you must have faith that the scientific fact is complete, and that there is no other alternative that will come to light later down the road when technology becomes more advanced.

Sadly incorrect.

‘A progression from particulars to a universal’ (Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, 4th cent. BC).

Science is an inductive method. Facts as a result of science are therefore inductive facts. Inductive facts change.

Don't make the mistake of thinking the definition of a scientific fact = Unchangeable objective truth. It doesn't.

Mareeka wrote: he held only one premise to be true: I think therefore I am.
To which he raised every thought of doubt***

After doing this simple test with every thought of doubt, he was able to accept everything without a doubt exactly as it is.

Yes he did, but his entire method relies completely on there being an perfect, immortal God Philosophers in the 1600's were allowed to use God as proof of their reasoning

Deception is an imperfection therefore since God is perfect he cannot be deceiving me

He uses some of the strongest arguments for the existence of God (better than any street preacher you'll find ) but his arguments still do not prove God's existence undoubtedly.

Vesha wrote: Steamboat, What that refers to is favoritism toward theories which does happen. Science is much like pop culture. For example almost all scientist believe in gravity. Gravity is just a theory because we can not directly detect gravity with our five senses we can only see its effects. If someone said gravity wasn’t real most scientist would probably dismiss that person as an idiot. That’s because not all theories are equally credible and to think that all theories should be credible would waste an enormous amount of time and we would never get anywhere. Does that mean scientist could be wrong about everything? No facts are still facts. An object falls to the ground (on earth without wind resistance) at a velocity = -9.81 m/s^2 that is fact.

I just wanted to be a little picky about the language, since my post to begin with was partly in response to use of language (though also metaphysical ideas).

Gravity would be a theory whether we could detect it with our senses or not. A theory is the absolute highest point you can possibly achieve in science. Facts are based on theories (remember to keep inserting 'science' behind all this). Cell theory is a 'theory' Special Relativity is a 'theory' but that is the greatest pinnacle of achievement in science. Science does not create objective truths about reality, it creates scientific truths that are true if you choose to accept the foundations of science as true. We don't 'believe' in Cell Theory or Special Relativity, we accept them as true within the framework of science.

A theory can be disproven but it can never be proven true - it's a posteriori.

a Hypothesis in God

A hypothesis must be both testable and falsifiable. You cannot 'test' for God. All arguments for a God's existence are philosophical and theological.
It is the same way you cannot have an 'afterlife hypothesis'. How do you test what happens when you are dead?
Scientific Hypothesis does not simply mean 'idea'.

---

After composing this post as I read through the comments I wanted to reiterate my response to what steamboat said: 'The noun versus the verb. It's probably a distinction I should have begun with.

Kaverael wrote:

Vesha wrote: Kaverael, science deals in facts and theories, the concept of a planet is neither in the same way that being Fat is neither a fact nor theory. What happened to Pluto was they redefined what a planet was in the same way you could redefine what being fat is. Being a planet is an opinion not a fact the change was due to discovering more information about rocks that orbit the sun and deciding the Pluto was more similar to other balls of matter then the other 8 balls of matter that orbit the sun.

Vesha,
The point I was trying to make is that what was once "scientific fact" has been changed based on newer technology, and no longer factual. If that is the case, what else do we accept as "scientific fact", and do we accept it based on faith that the science behind it is complete?

And my point was it was never a scientific fact it was an opinion.

Now about gravity, if we could detect gravity with our five senses and it passed multiply test, then we would call it a law. Just like there is no theory of thermodynamics, there is the laws of thermodynamics which are observable, testable, and have never been broken.

Although science is based in observation and repeatable results to me it seems that science has become a religion of faith to the average individual. I understand Akkarin’s thought process and argument based in the original post and don’t have issue with it. Just bringing another side, or possibility, to the table.

faith noun \ˈfāth\
: strong belief or trust in someone or something
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

sci•ence noun \ˈsī-ən(t)s\
: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

re•li•gion noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

In science, the observable events are recorded and data is collected for publication. Recreating the experiment further quantifies the results to the individual and can then have the results published in either support or opposition of previous said results. Experiments are often reproduced with a singular variable altered to further research or explanation of original hypothesis. For the non-bias scientist, science is an invaluable tool in aiding the discovery of the natural world and our knowledge and understanding of it.

To the average person… science is little more than a faith based religion. With little understanding of underlying or fundamental principles, and limited resources, accepting the found prior results as continuously valid is just about the only option available to them. And due to so much of our society being based in and relying heavily on the results of science and it’s advances society as a whole has learned to blindly follow or believe in the institution presented. And our faith is affirmed every time we hold a box of polymer composites, silica and composite alloys up to the side of our head and speak to others through invisible lines of connection; or gaze adoringly at the latest and greatest device sent to us as a show of power from those that wield science with little less regard then a child with a toy.

Don’t get me wrong, science is GREAT!!! I love it! But it is just a tool. What we do with it and how we treat it is up to us and speaks as much about us as any other action we perform in our lives.

I guess what I’m getting at is… even though results provided through scientific endeavors are constantly at our disposal don’t take at face value all that is presented in the light it is presented in. People are opinionated and bias; and normally have some agenda that motivates them. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be very bad to blindly follow and accept “what is” on faith.

Thanks Akkarin for letting me know that about Descartes.

But . :blink: . . his belief has nothing to do with the protocol for the experiment or its value were it applied to every doubt.

A couple of side notes:

(1)
Descartes' scientific process is at the base of post freudian cognitive behavioralism, especially in Albert Ellis' work.
Ellis was atheist.

(2)
I found the experiment on facebook. I tried it. It is effective in loosening attachments.

Maybe I should have started a new thread ??????

To the average person, science is whatever they are told it is. You only have to look at the constant half assed, badly researched, bias presentation of "Nutritional science" in the media to see this. Or in the way research on physchiatric drugs is presented.

Science in my opinion, is far too often polluted by intention. So unless you are capable of reading and understanding the research without bias, science requires "trust".

One is not the other.

I never understood why people try to pit science (more specifically, biology, astronomy, and geology) and faith against each other. Why not argue as to whether space exploration can take the place of proctology? It makes about as much sense. Aside from creationists or radical atheists like Dawkins, science vs faith is a non-issue.