Belief in science

[D H]

In other thread, Phi said

I would still like to talk about the difference between how a scientist accepts science and a religious person accepts religion. "Belief" can't mean the same thing to both.

 

Said topic is a bit of a sidebar (not quite off-topic, but close) to the discussion in that thread. Rather than discuss said topic there, how about a new thread?

 

My take: Science also entails a belief system (otherwise, why not solipsism?) In a word, that belief system is realism or naturalism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a fairly good entry on realism, naturalism, and scientific realism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/, and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/.

 

One key difference between the scientist's belief that reality is real and the religious' belief that their religion is real is that the scientific faith is inherently laden with questioning which religious faith must be at some level unquestioning. Scientists know that their current explanations are at best provisionally correct and at worst flat-out wrong, while the religious know that their beliefs are correct.

 

 

Aside: If we had a philosophy of science forum this thread would be a perfect entry. (Hint, hint)

[Phi for All]

My take: Believing something is true, in a scientific sense, is studying something thoroughly, examining the evidence and coming to the conclusion that it is most probably true. Believing something is true in a religious sense is looking beyond the natural evidence and concluding that science can't deal with what can't be observed, and taking it on faith that there is a possibility of something there.

 

I don't say that one is superior to the other, simply that scientific method is a more rigorous approach while faith attaches itself to a smaller probability. I happen to have faith that there exists in our universe certain things we aren't able to observe with our limited senses. Some fish can sense electrical fields. I imagine how different our own lives would be structured if we could know there was life in close proximity but beyond our sight, smell and hearing.

 

I haven't studied this to be able to accept it, I just have faith that there is enough of a probability to make it possible. It is different from my acceptance of certain scientific theories because I have been able to study those and determine they are most probably true.

[Mr Skeptic]

My take: Science also entails a belief system (otherwise, why not solipsism?) In a word, that belief system is realism or naturalism.

 

I agree. I tried to extract the core beliefs of science from the scientific method:

# That the world is consistent. This is implied by the requirement of repeatability.

# That the world is objective. This is implied by the requirement that experiments must be repeatable by other people.

# That the world is observable. This is implied by the requirement that observations be made.

# That the world is understandable/predictable. This is implied by its dedication to understanding/predicting the world.

 

IMO science doesn't necessarily say about anything being "real" -- if the world we see is a giant hologram, science is the study of the hologram.

[Royston]

To have belief in something that changes over time, and from our point of view progresses, can be considered a contradiction. The scientific method works, there's evidence.

 

DH, this is a semantic argument, isn't it ?

[Mokele]

I think the problem is the word "belief", which can range from unquestioning acceptance of the existence of God to tentative evidence-based acceptance that a particular chemical reacts with another in a particular way to the informal assessment that I'm a good driver and more.

 

It's a word with a lot of varying definitions, and trying to lump science and faith under it is like me trying to pass off my pet boa constrictor as "a distant relative of dogs" - true, but so broad as to be useless and vaguely shady.

 

I think that's the reason science is famous for huge, complicated, multi-syllable words - because science realized the problems inherent in this sort of discussion long ago, and just opted for being ridiculously specific.

 

Mokele

[Phi for All]

I think the problem is the word "belief", which can range from unquestioning acceptance of the existence of God to tentative evidence-based acceptance that a particular chemical reacts with another in a particular way to the informal assessment that I'm a good driver and more.

 

It's a word with a lot of varying definitions, and trying to lump science and faith under it is like me trying to pass off my pet boa constrictor as "a distant relative of dogs" - true, but so broad as to be useless and vaguely shady.

 

I think that's the reason science is famous for huge, complicated, multi-syllable words - because science realized the problems inherent in this sort of discussion long ago, and just opted for being ridiculously specific.

 

Mokele

I agree with this completely. "Belief" is a culprit. "True" has some culpability as well. There are varying degrees in just about everybody's definitions that causes problems. "Proof" and "evidence" are also often misunderstood as well.

[ydoaPs]

My take: Believing something is true, in a scientific sense, is studying something thoroughly, examining the evidence and coming to the conclusion that it is most probably true.

I agree.

 

 

 

I don't say that one is superior to the other

Well, you should. Science, as you've even said above, looks at evidence and tries to verify itself. It is always questioning and refining itself.

 

 

Faith doesn't. Faith is useless. There is no way of using faith to verify whether or not you're correct. If there was, there'd be nowhere near as many religions/denominations as there are. You and someone else can have equal amounts of faith in opposite viewpoints on the same topic-how do you know who's right?

 

Trying to put science and faith on equal ground is plainly ridiculous.

 

 

I happen to have faith that there exists in our universe certain things we aren't able to observe with our limited senses.

That's why we have radio telescopes, electron microscopes, etc. It's not faith;it's science-we have evidence on the matter.

 

 

I agree. I tried to extract the core beliefs of science from the scientific method:

# That the world is consistent. This is implied by the requirement of repeatability.

# That the world is objective. This is implied by the requirement that experiments must be repeatable by other people.

# That the world is observable. This is implied by the requirement that observations be made.

# That the world is understandable/predictable. This is implied by its dedication to understanding/predicting the world.

 

IMO science doesn't necessarily say about anything being "real" -- if the world we see is a giant hologram, science is the study of the hologram.

[acr=Quoted For Truth]QFT[/acr]

[Phi for All]

Well, you should. Science, as you've even said above, looks at evidence and tries to verify itself. It is always questioning and refining itself.

 

 

Faith doesn't. Faith is useless. There is no way of using faith to verify whether or not you're correct. If there was, there'd be nowhere near as many religions/denominations as there are. You and someone else can have equal amounts of faith in opposite viewpoints on the same topic-how do you know who's right?[

Let's be clear. Any faith I have is not rooted in anything firmer than a skepticism that science may be overlooking something it can't observe, merely for the fact that we observers are limited within it by the senses we possess. I don't even really call it faith, and I certainly don't call it religion. Think of it as an absurd amount of skepticism.

 

Trying to put science and faith on equal ground is plainly ridiculous.

I agree and would never try to do so. Neither would I completely and utterly dismiss something purely on the basis that it is highly improbable. I'm not big on absolutes in anything.

 

 

That's why we have radio telescopes, electron microscopes, etc. It's not faith;it's science-we have evidence on the matter.

We discovered, through science, that some fish can sense EM fields. We didn't always know this, even though science has been observing fish for some time now. I think there is a very low but existing probability that there are aspects of the universe we are currently incapable of observing.

[D H]

DH, this is a semantic argument, isn't it ?

No, not at all. Science is flanked by unquestioning religious faith on one side, where there is but one truth, new age "enlightenment" (post-modernism, pyramids and crystals, ...) on the other. Solipsism is on yet another plane. What distinguishes science from all of these is a belief (a very well justified one, IMNHO) that there is something out there called reality and that supernatural explanations are not needed.

[Daecon]

I don't like believing anything, I prefer to know.

 

Failing that, I acknowledge the "reality" that's implied by logic, reasoning and verifiable investigation.

[Reaper]

I think there is a very low but existing probability that there are aspects of the universe we are currently incapable of observing.

 

There is a difference between not being able to observe/know something, and constructing a set of stories/statements in such a way as to be unfalsifiable.

 

That, ultimately, what makes science hugely more reliable for explaining everything around us, rather than religion.

[Mr Skeptic]

I don't like believing anything, I prefer to know.

 

A fan of philosophy and math rather than science, eh?

[Baby Astronaut]

One key difference between the scientist's belief that reality is real and the religious' belief that their religion is real is that the scientific faith is inherently laden with questioning which religious faith must be at some level unquestioning. Scientists know that their current explanations are at best provisionally correct and at worst flat-out wrong, while the religious know that their beliefs are correct.

Well, here the rub.

 

Science does not label anyone as "the bad guys". Yet religion often does. Consequently, those in power using religion as a tool will gain loyalty, as its followers are on the "same side". Thankfully, not all religions are guilty of this, nor all within their flocks.

 

But science depends on proof and facts. However, the approach to science itself does hinge on belief: in that observations must be performed, tests must be done and its results peer reviewed, the methods followed must be precisely noted, etc. However, the field of science and its tested conclusions have little to do with belief. Anyone is welcome to question findings which already have been proven. And there exists no scientific "bible". The entire field of science is always evolving, improving, open to new evidence. Not suggestions, pet theories, or what'll help some powerful group, but actual evidence.

 

Plus science consists of multiple disciplines which get along instead of declaring war on each other.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Baby Astronaut

[Daecon]

Teh bibble is the unchanging word of Allah, or Jehova, or whoever (but not a pantheon as they're actually Satan trying to trick you), while science is constantly changing and correcting itself. That means science is WROOOOONG.

[arnolp04]

Both are belief systems, or more correctly some elements of science are belief systems - any one seen a Higgs Boson yet? What happened in the first billionth of a second after the Universe was created? Belief plays a a huge role in these areas of research. The big difference between scientific belief and religious belief is that scientists, (to coin a cliche) are prepared to slay their own intellectual children - they challenge their beliefs at every turn, when new information appears on the scene.

[iNow]

Belief has multiple different meanings/contexts, though, and that's the point. My belief that the sun will appear over the horizon tomorrow morning [math]\ne[/math] anothers belief that Jesus was born of a virgin or that resurrection of a dead body happened out in a desert two millenia ago. One is evidence based, the other is not.

 

 

People who practice science, who read and write papers on topics know just how important word choice is when trying to convey a clear idea and avoid confusion. Precision of language is tantamount, even if it means using 7 words to describe what a layman might use 1 word to describe. Why then, I ask, should people who practice science be so lazy as to accept the word "belief" for what they do, when it's more accurate to say that they "accept the evidence in favor of position X?" Rhetorical laziness like this (using one word with ambiguous meanings) just opens the door to equivocation and conflation by people who wish to battle that which challenges the infallibility of their scriptural truths.

 

Sorry, I'm going off topic a bit.

 

 

DH in the OP said "belief system," instead of just "belief." Even that minimal clarification and precision changes the entire thrust of the descriptor. Science is a belief system, but it is not contained by that label either. It is so much more.

[D H]

DH in the OP said "belief system," instead of just "belief." Even that minimal clarification and precision changes the entire thrust of the descriptor. Science is a belief system, but it is not contained by that label either. It is so much more.

Bingo. I smoked some chicken last night for supper. I checked the ashes this morning. Nuts. No gold. There was just gray ashes, plus some yellowish ashes left by the bark, plus some still-hot coals. (Double nuts! I couldn't toss the ashes on the compost; I had to let them cool some more.) Just because every other time I use my smoker and I only have ashes left, does that necessarily mean I won't find gold the next time? Who knows? Maybe those yellowish ashes will be gold the next time around.

 

To a scientist, the answer is no. The residue from my smoking will always be ashes. Science assumes that the universe is logical, consistent, and follows a fairly small set of fairly simple rules. The non-scientific world on the other hand believes the universe is illogical, inconsistent, and capricious; that a man can transform into a goat.

 

That the universe is logical, consistent, simple, and ultimately understandable is a belief. As I mentioned earlier, it is a very-well justified belief (science works). To think that it is anything but a belief is to fall into the trap that abductive reasoning, the core of the scientific method, is a logically valid inference technique.

[Baby Astronaut]

Both are belief systems, or more correctly some elements of science are belief systems - any one seen a Higgs Boson yet? What happened in the first billionth of a second after the Universe was created? Belief plays a a huge role in these areas of research.

I challenge that assertion.

 

Scientists as a group do not "believe" in what you mentioned, rather they use the possibilities as add-on tools for the mathematical construct of physics and defining of reality. I've learned that many perceived instances of "belief" from scientists is either a byproduct of media sensationalism and the way a journalist might angle the scientist's words, or also it just might result from an overeager scientist attempting to communicate effectively to a less scientific public.

[D H]

Baby Astronaut is correct. arnolp4, you need to learn to distinguish between hypotheses and axioms. Science does have certain core beliefs, or axiomatic statements. The Higgs boson is a hypothetical particle. It is not axiomatic. The unquestioning beliefs in science are pretty simple.

 

Causality: Things have a cause. Moreover, they have a natural cause. Even if we cannot quite get a handle on cause and effect (e.g. radioactive decay), we still believe that things are subject to Natural Laws. So rather than causality, call this the axiom of Natural Laws.

 

Temporality, or the Arrow of Time: Cause precedes effect. (Modern physics sometimes gets a pass on this axiom).

 

Consistency: The laws of nature are invariant with respect to time. Tomorrow will be pretty much the same as yesterday. Yesterday I dropped a plate. It fell to the floor and broke. If I drop a plate tomorrow I should expect the same thing to happen. In particular, it won't fly to the ceiling.

 

Discernability: The laws of nature (see axiom #1) are discernable by us, at least in some form that is approximately correct.

 

Identity: If a=c and b=c, then a=b. Peano's identity axiom implicitly appears throughout science.

 

 

Neither of the two key reasoning techniques used in the scientific method, inductive and abductive reasoning, is logically valid. Various philosophers of science from Hume to Popper and Kuhn have tried to address the problems of inductive and abductive reasoning; none have entirely succeeded.

[waitforufo]

I always thought that the term "belief" was used in science when the position supported was arrived at more by inductive instead of deductive reasoning. Proofs provided by deductive reasoning or by exhaustion (and some other means) are complete and therefore provide complete knowledge. No need to say "I believe", one simply knows. Proofs by induction are supported by all known observations, but since all observations have not been tried or made, who knows?

 

For many years people said I believe I can make a map where no two shapes sharing a common border will also have the same color. They believed this because every attempt made proved this theorem correct. With the advent of computers this theorem was proven by exhaustion. Now they can say I know.

 

Europeans for many centuries believed that all swans were white. All that they had see were white. Through induction they believed they could say with certainty that all swans were white. Then they found black swans in Australia.

 

Theologians by the way spend a lot of time trying to understand their beliefs. Through this study they often change their belief systems.

[D H]

The four-color map theorem lies in the realm of mathematics, not science.

[waitforufo]

Perhaps a bad example, but I believe my point is still a valid contribution.