The newest "religions"?

[Daecon]

If theories like the Superstring and Loop Quantumn Gravity can never be tested directly (except from predictions made by them) would that mean they have the qualities usually attributed to descriptions of "faith"?

 

If so, would this make advances in theoretical physics similar to the advent of new religious convictions?

 

Perhaps a topic for discussion?

[Klaynos]

Nothing can be tested except by predictions made by the theory. And if tehre is no way that something can be scientifically tested ever, it is not science by definition.

[mr d]

Hello

 

In the broadest sense, using common lanuage definition of the word, I'd say yes.

 

However when using the term religious, it indicates the presence of a deity(s) to be included in the equation. And so far as I know, science has no standardized symbol for the representation of such deities within and equation.

 

If such a symbol exists please inform.

 

Mr D

[Sisyphus]

I was under the impression that religious conviction was not something that could change when new information came along. Also, no scientist would "believe" something that was untestable except as a (perhaps probable) possibility or a useful working model.

[Severian]

As long as they make predictions that can be tested in principle they are science. It doesn't matter whether or not we have the technical ability to do so or not.

 

However, given the recent discussion of the sting theory 'landscape' I am not sure string theory can even make predictions testable in principle.

[Martin]

As long as they make predictions that can be tested in principle they are science. It doesn't matter whether or not we have the technical ability to do so or not.

 

However' date=' given the recent discussion of the sting theory 'landscape' I am not sure string theory can even make predictions testable in principle.[/quote']

 

I agree completely with Sev's remark here.

 

Scientific theories are not constructed so that people can "believe in" them. they are meant to be TESTED.

A theory is repeatedly tested until it is falsified or found to have some limitation to how widely it can be applied.

 

then the game is to develop something better or with wider applicability.

 

Experiment can never actually prove a theory true, because the next experiment might show it false----no matter how many tests it passes, it can still fail the next one.

 

Old theories that have survived much testing acquire a kind of cautious respect that is close to being belief----but they can still be found to be off at the next decimal place.

 

LQG is a loose collection of related non-string approaches to QG.

right now i think the most promising work is being done by Laurent Freidel.

His style of LQG, something he has put an awful lot of work into, is going to face an empirical test in 2007 or 2008.

 

If it fails the observational test it will be a lot of very fine promising work down the tubes. That is the way science is supposed to be, but I hope for his sake and that of his collaborators that it passes.

 

this will still not prove his approach to QG is right! It just means the theory can live on and keep growing and adapting until it has to face the next test.

 

Anyway it isn't remotely a "religion"

 

Freidel's recent papers are now more highly cited than Smolin or Rovelli (LQG founders). He has gotten several exciting results in the past year.

But his work predicts a barely detectable variation in the speed of gamma photons depending on energy----something that seems rather strange and risky---it could cause his QG model to be shot down within a couple of years.

[Martin]

in case you or anyone is curious here are Freidel's papers

http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au:+Freidel/0/1/0/all/0/1

 

they are not all focused on one QG approach but a lot of the recent ones are

 

here is a Freidel with 27 citations----it is a small field so a research paper that gets 27 is doing good (even if it includes some self-citations)

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0502106

 

here are the 27 other papers that cited this one

http://arxiv.org/cits/hep-th/0502106

 

here is Freidel's total output of 34 (he's still a young guy---postdoc I think, until recently)

http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au:+Freidel/0/1/0/all/0/1

 

I was impressed that Freidel co-authored with Shahn Majid recently

[mr d]

Hello again

 

I still think there can be drawn a comparision in the belief in string theory to religious faith. In that faith is at base line defined as 'Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.'

 

Now most persons visiting this website are more attuned to science and how it would interpret string as related to scientific testing of a theory.

 

But to the broad lay public they will never conduct tests on string theory. They just accept on faith conclusions drawn by the scientific community. Their belief in the 'truth, value, and trustworthiness' is based only on faith in those making the statements regarding the theory. Not on the theory itself or it's scientific validity.

 

Mr D

[Martin]

 

But to the broad lay public ...

 

Mr D

 

Heck yes, Mr D. It isnt just lay public EVERYBODY believes stuff.

 

I believe stuff. I just try not to confuse my faith in scientific explanation of the universe with actual science.

 

I BELIEVE that the cosmos has a deep mathematical pattern made of laws, that we can little by little (testing each step of the way) discover.

 

My FAITH is that we wont be screwed up by inconsistencies, that the pattern is really there, even if we cant see it precisely yet.

 

Nobody yet proved that this is true, nobody showed that the Universe is rational and consistent and with trustworthy laws. Lawfulness might turn out to be a disappointing illusion (a mean 'trick' played on us by Nature, so to speak)

 

==============

 

I dont call my faith in cosmic lawfulness Science. A scientific theory is something that predicts numbers so you can test it and you have a chance to prove it wrong. My faith is not science, it is merely faith.

 

Everybody has the right to whatever faith-type beliefs.

 

if lay public wants to believe tales that, like, Brian Greene or Stephen Hawking spins, that is fine. it is not science but why shouldnt they?

 

But please don't call LQG models a "religion". Even the people developing the models have plenty of reservations. These things will get tested, and discarded or else gradually improved. They are science.

[mr d]

Hello

 

I think if you reread what I wrote, I was merely comparing faith in science to faith in religion. Not religious faith.

 

Stole this from Wikipedia (always be objective of info found here). Er.. wait a minute I'm currently an American, so I liberated it from oppression.

 

Religion: a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen or imaginary being, or system of thought; considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought.

 

Which if you consider science a system of thought, and believe science laws and theories the highest form of truth. Then a case could be made that amoung certain people who hold faith in science above all else, their beliefs could be considered religious in nature.

For do they not have quite a number of Institutions dedicated to their followers, and to the promotion of their beliefs. Not quite sure who their Pope is though. Maybe Professor Hawkins?

 

Mr D

[Martin]

 

Religion: a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object' date=' person, unseen or imaginary being, or system of thought; considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought.

 

Which if you consider science a system of thought, and believe science laws and theories the highest form of truth. Then a case could be made that amoung certain people who hold faith in science above all else, their beliefs could be considered religious in nature.

For do they not have quite a number of Institutions dedicated to their followers, and to the promotion of their beliefs. Not quite sure who their Pope is though. Maybe Professor Hawkins?[/quote']

 

Dawkins? Hawking?

People these days seem endlessly fascinated by the interface twixt Sci and Relig!

there is no cut and dried formula for separating that can be imposed top down by some philosopher----so everybody seems to have to work it out for themselves.

However this can easily turn out to be UNINTERESTING to someone who has worked it out already in a way satisfactory to them!

 

You should probably go to Phil and Rel subforum here at SFN and start a thread and get people to talk to.

 

Here everybody will just get impatient with you. they will just say, as I do,

 

"what the hell are you talking about, man, scientific theories are not something you BELIEVE in at all----you use them to test and predict, and you always hope to be able to improve on them."

 

"so scientific theories are totally different from religion. that is totally obvious. go away and don't bother us!"

 

Of course what stirs people in the depth of their hearts and makes them do what they do----these are unspoken things which we don't talk about---you can make smart suppositions about people's psychology and motives but that is all it is, suppositions. Maybe there is Freudian stuff involved. Looking up the skirts of Lady Nature, or whatever. Maybe there is some subconscious stuff in there analogous to people's religious drives too.

 

but I would say forget it. the actual scientific THEORIES are completely unlike religious belief and have a different logical function

 

Of course that is my opinion, other people can think otherwise. But I am thru talking about this here in Physics subforum. I'd be happy to discuss it with you in Phil&Relig subforum.

[gcol]

Nicely argued, Mr.d.

 

Having once been told by an acolyte of the scientific faith that a dictionary is not a technical resource (it dared to contradict him) I suspect Wiki will now be sentenced to destruction by fahrenheit 451 as heretical.

 

It is not the conclusions of science that counts as religious faith (in the broadest possible terms), but the methodology.

 

It is probably the healthiest religion though, because doubting and questioning are among its Holy Tenets. Sadly the seminary trained high priests sometimes get a bit snotty if the peasants, forgetting to be ever so humble, doubt and question the hierarchy itself

[Martin]

Mr D. Look carefully at what Severian says here.

It is representative. and a kind of absolute principle.

 

As long as they make predictions that can be tested in principle they are science. It doesn't matter whether or not we have the technical ability to do so or not.

 

However' date=' given the recent discussion of the sting theory 'landscape' I am not sure string theory can even make predictions testable in principle.[/quote']

 

to be a scientific theory it has to MAKE PREDICTIONS THAT CAN BE TESTED

 

the 'in principle' allows for some fuzziness, some areas where you hope that reasonable people can agree, but they may not, and so on---some shades of grey.

 

above all, a theory has to predict the result of some experiment that has not yet been done, and some measurment that has not so far been made

 

it must, to be real science, BET ITS LIFE of a certain outcome or range of measurements. so that if that prediction does not come true it is DEAD.

 

if an alleged theory is so mushy and wishwashy that it can accept any future outcome of any future experiment, then it is NOT SCIENCE.

 

if it says "Oh yes, it would be nice if we see supersymmetry at that energy but if we don't that's OK too, we can live with that"

 

if it says "Yes indeed it would sure be nice if we see evidence of extra dimensions at that particular machine at that level of collision energy, but if you don't that's OK----maybe later at some other energy in some other machine"

 

if it talks like that, this does not constitute what is meant by prediction. the wannabe-theory is not yet acting like a real theory. quite a few scientists get impatient with this.

 

(but I would hesitate to say that wishy-wash thinking that fails to be testable scientific theory is thereby a religion----maybe you dont call it "religion" you just say it is neither fish-nor-fowl----maybe it is a fun mathematical fairyland---maybe it is a new branch of mathematics---maybe it is an addictive game, whatever---maybe it is phony physics but valuable in some other way---maybe it will BECOME physics someday.)

 

But calling such a thing "religion" is just too glib. At least that's how it strikes me this morning.

 

thanks for the discussion though:-)

[mr d]

Hello

 

I must admit I have no understanding of Martin's responce.

 

The original question dealt with whether there can be made a comparison between faith in science and faith in religion. And I believe I was discussing based on that, and the question did not phrase that responces could only be made from a scientific point of view. Excluding conclusions made from a generalized interpretation of the meaning of faith, religion, and scientific theory.

 

He seems to be taking my responces as a personal attack somehow against his own believe system.

 

Understanding this is a science site, and this particular forum is designated for question of Physics. Is it wrong to reply to questions based on how they are posed? Or is it one should only respond in tepid concurrance as stipulated by adherance to a science-centric point of view in this forum?

 

Or is it that the original question should be considered best relocated to as Martin suggests the Polit-Relig forum?

 

Since Martin politely declines to futher conveyence of discussion on the matter. Perhaps one of you can inform me as to why my responces could have drawn, what I tend to view as a rather fanatical diatribe, from Martin.

 

I truely do not understand.

 

Thank You Mr D

[Martin]

well perhaps you have a valid criticism of me MrD!

 

maybe my last few posts HAVE sounded fanatical or opinionated, or as if you were threatening some cherished belief of mine.

 

I am not offended by your criticism. mainly I stand by my posts because I was trying to be CLEAR about something a lot of people seem to confuse.

 

it may be that the MOTIVATION for doing science, the "love" that one has for asking the questions and searching for patterns, has some deep kinship with the motivation behind religion.

 

I will grant what you are suggesting at that level. It is possible that the unverifiable FAITH that the scientific method will lead to better and better theories----like a "convergent series" in math-----is analogous to a religious faith.

 

but that FAITH is not part of science itself. it is one of the MOTIVES for doing science.

 

You are right to ask if someone else will continue the discussion with you, because I have said all I can about this.

=========

 

no offense to you intended either. sorry if I sound too opinionated or overly emphatic on this issue

[mr d]

Hello

 

To Martin (hopefully you are still reading). I thank you Sir for your gracious apology, though feel I owe one to Transdecimal for side tracking his question so.

 

And yes I understand your defense of science, as we are apt to see a 'pop-culture' view of it at the moment.

 

But to ask and indulgence to explain. I titled my first responce 'Just to be different.' As I believe it important to at least voice the other non (lay) scientific view at times, inparticular when a question is open to wider interpretation.

 

I find distrubing a trend amoung many in science to dismiss such views without taking into consideration that ultimately that it is the non-scientific masses are the ones who will put to use the knowledge gained by men of science. And it will be their views\beliefs that direct the uses to which it is engaged.

 

I almost feel by your vehement defense that perhaps you yourself may have had work corrupted or bastardized by those non-scientists around you.

 

Also on this site I see student espousing to the worthlessness of sociology or history. Believing somehow science stands alone and untainted by such common matters and people. That the purity of imperical data is uncorruptable, yet it is corruptable and quite malleable to manipulation in the hands of non-scientists.

 

So I at times choose to voice an opinion from that side, I may at times not hold much validity to those views, but voice them in the hope that it may cause others to pause a moment to look at the question in another way. Sometimes I think it's useful to see from another eyes, as you can learn things you might now of through your own. And it will be those masses to which your hard one knowledge will be presented. Best to have an understanding of how they will except and prosper from it.

 

Again apologies to Transdecimal, and I promise to divest myself of this post.

 

Mr D

 

p.s. to Martin: I would think from your posts you could quite well reason out questions from various viewpoints. Perhaps sometime you could 'Just to be different'. Start a little fire under Scientific complacency you might run in to.

[Martin]

I am beginning to come around to a different viewpoint where I LIKE what I hear you saying, Mr D.

 

I was too vehement earlier.

[J.C.MacSwell]

I think physicists, for the most part, are pretty good at staying objective. But I do question the degree of "faith" they seem to have in "theories" such as the Big Bang Model. Built up on strong circumstantial evidence, and having no serious alternatives "remaining standing", has seemed to have produced a paradigm of certainty beyond what seems warranted. I think "science" puts the Big Bang Model as the clear front runner, but faith, mob mentality ( ) or just by default it gets pushed into the all but certain range.

[swansont]

Nicely argued' date=' Mr.d.

 

Having once been told by an acolyte of the scientific faith that a dictionary is not a technical resource (it dared to contradict him) I suspect Wiki will now be sentenced to destruction by fahrenheit 451 as heretical.

 

It is not the conclusions of science that counts as religious faith [b'](in the broadest possible terms)[/b], but the methodology.

 

It is probably the healthiest religion though, because doubting and questioning are among its Holy Tenets. Sadly the seminary trained high priests sometimes get a bit snotty if the peasants, forgetting to be ever so humble, doubt and question the hierarchy itself

 

I disagree. Referring to scientists as acolytes and high priests is pejorative and appears to be an attempt to poison the well. Also, argument by dictionary definition is often, though not always, an exercise in equivocation. (There are numerous example of scientific definitions and lay definitions not being the same and even contradicting, in a way) The nature of science is that it's about the evidence, and not the rhetoric.

 

I think perhaps you misunderstand the motivations of those who get snotty, and are constructing a strawman. (Perhaps I'm included in that group, for I have been curt with some who display certain behavior that contains contempt for science). But my "attitude" is generally reserved for those who tell me that science (in general or a specific part of it, like relativity) is wrong, but clearly do not know what they are talking about, with regard to both the process and the evidence/data. I don't, for example, have a tremendous amount of patience for "it's hard/I don't understand it, so therefore it's wrong." (Some related phenomena are actually explained quite well in the link within another current thread, misrepresentation of science, wherein the author discusses the "humanities graduate journalists' parody of science").

 

It's not clear to me if you are critiquing science or some parody of it. As it has been said, anecdotes aren't evidence. Your story is an anecdote. It's meaningless as an indictment of science, all the more so because there is no actual data included in it.

 

But , back to the main topic. There is a difference between people treating something religiously and being inherently religious. There are people out there that do science a disservice because they argue on its behalf, but clearly treat it as a belief; they e.g. advocate positions based on "somebody said so," and argument from authority is counter to the process of science. But that's an indictment of the nature of people, not of science. Science is a way of thinking and a way of investigating nature. It's not about belief, but about the confidence that we have that a theory is correct, based on the evidence gathered and the correctness of predictions made.

 

There will always be some who simply believe, religiously, in gravity, for example, rather than come to the realization that science accepts gravity because of the sheer weight (as it were) of the data. Or attempt to convince others that gravity is true because "Stephen Hawking said so." But that doesn't mean gravity is a religion. Same for the rest of science.