The faith of scientists

Villain · March 9, 2012

When looking at science and more importantly the back bone of science, the scientist, one should not be too quick to disregard religion as having no part. For which scientist has proven all scientific knowledge? What I am saying is that faith is something that is not completely exclusive to religion and that the trust in humans of results and theories which have not personally been verified by oneself is very much the same as a faith in religion.

hypervalent_iodine · March 9, 2012

There is a difference between having faith in something and having blind faith in something. Science doesn't tend to entertain the latter.

Villain · March 9, 2012

Could you give an example of each? I would assume that some theories that are highly regarded now were seen as blind faith at some time (by science itself, to avoid confusion).

ajb · March 9, 2012

Religion is just based on blind faith; in the sense that you do not ask for or require any kind of objective, impartial, reliable, repeatable physical evidence. Any evidence for God (or gods) is personal and philosophical. This means there is nothing that one could really argue a strong position from.

Science is different. Here you question everything and look for experimental or observational evidence that will support or indeed refute your claims. There is no blind faith in science.

You might say that string theory or some other modern theory is blind faith. I would dispute this. It is true that there is no experimental evidence to date, but there are mathematical reasons to think string theory is not too far off the mark and string theory is built up being guided by reason. The other point is, should string theory ultimately be falsified then scientists will move on to the next idea.

Villain · March 9, 2012

If a person does not have the ability to understand either religion or science, which one would you teach them as being truth?

Edited March 9, 2012 by Villain

**Klaynos** · March 9, 2012

If a person does not have the ability to understand either religion or science, which one would you teach them as being truth?

I'd try and teach them to understand.

ajb · March 9, 2012

If a person does not have the ability to understand either religion or science, which one would you teach them as being truth?

Well, I can give you evidence that our understanding of parts of nature is very good. This is science.

Unfortunately, the evidence that religion gives us some further understanding is lacking.

I have in my reply dodged your question. Truth is a subtle issue. Our understanding of science is always shifting and can evolve. What I can say is given our current best theories and experimental data we know ...

To state something as absolute truth is not really how scientists think. Things become a better and better approximation to nature as our understanding grows.

Villain · March 9, 2012

It's a loaded question, either answer requires the person to act in faith as they don't have an understanding of either. Trusting the person in front of them or trusting the book written by someone is a coin toss.

ajb · March 9, 2012

Trusting the person in front of them or trusting the book written by someone is a coin toss.

I don't think one should equate trust with blind faith. That said, I understand your point, especially when it comes to popularisation of science.

Villain · March 9, 2012

My point being that only someone who understands everything about a theory has the ability to determine its truth, all others rely on faith that it exists. Therefore no scientist can claim that they believe everything about science until they personally test it all. To discredit the Bible as non evidential is to discredit works of science that you personally cannot understand as non evidential even if you think that had you understood them there would be evidence (try remain neutral when reading this).

ajb · March 9, 2012

My point being that only someone who understands everything about a theory has the ability to determine its truth, all others rely on faith that it exists.

Not faith, rather trust. In general I trust experts in other fields to do the work to the standard required by that subject. This where peer-review comes in handy.

Therefore no scientist can claim that they believe everything about science until they personally test it all.

What is true is that any given scientist will typically only know a small subset of science in any great depth. Science changes and new things are discovered. So I am very unclear what you mean by everything about science.

To discredit the Bible as non evidential is to discredit works of science that you personally cannot understand as non evidential even if you think that had you understood them there would be evidence (try remain neutral when reading this).

This I do not follow. I don't need to fully understand every experiment ever done to accept current scientific thinking. Experts in each small subset can give us hard evidence. I accept that these experts accept the evidence where it is found. This does not mean that all scientific ideas are automatically right and new evidence can come to light. There are controversies and issues that are not fully understood.

The thing is science is such a large subject and it is growing. No-one will ever be an expert in everything. Moreover, there is no need for anyone to know everything that is known. The scientific community as a whole regulates itself via peer-review. Not that this is infallible, but it serves as a kind of standard that is subject specific.

Edited March 9, 2012 by ajb

Arete · March 9, 2012

My point being that only someone who understands everything about a theory has the ability to determine its truth, all others rely on faith that it exists. Therefore no scientist can claim that they believe everything about science until they personally test it all. To discredit the Bible as non evidential is to discredit works of science that you personally cannot understand as non evidential even if you think that had you understood them there would be evidence (try remain neutral when reading this).

So If I was on a jury, convicting because the prosecutor said "We believe he did it because we found his fingerprints at the scene and matched the bullets to a gun registered in his name - here's how we processed the evidence..." would be the same as convicting becuase he said "I believe it's him because I have a gut feeling he did it." unless I was an expert crime scene investigator and collected the evidence myself?

Villain · March 9, 2012

Not faith, rather trust. In general I trust experts in other fields to do the work to the standard required by that subject. This where peer-review comes in handy.

<a href="dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith">Working link to faith defintion</a> A form of peer-review would be documentation of findings by different sources.

What is true is that any given scientist will typically only know a small subset of science in any great depth. Science changes and new things are discovered. So I am very unclear what you mean by everything about science.

Science as a body of work, the subject science, all forms of science.

This I do not follow. I don't need to fully understand every experiment ever done to accept current scientific thinking. Experts in each small subset can give us hard evidence. I accept that these experts accept the evidence where it is found. This does not mean that all scientific ideas are automatically right and new evidence can come to light. There are controversies and issues that are not fully understood. The thing is science is such a large subject and it is growing. No-one will ever be an expert in everything. Moreover, there is no need for anyone to know everything that is known. The scientific community as a whole regulates itself via peer-review. Not that this is infallible, but it serves as a kind of standard that is subject specific.

I am saying that this is what leaves room for the Bible as such to be considered evidence. If scientists can trust and accept theories that they have not personally proved or disproved then there is room for religion.

So If I was on a jury, convicting because the prosecutor said "We believe he did it because we found his fingerprints at the scene and matched the bullets to a gun registered in his name - here's how we processed the evidence..." would be the same as convicting becuase he said "I believe it's him because I have a gut feeling he did it." unless I was an expert crime scene investigator and collected the evidence myself?

Are you comparing scientists to a jury? Edited March 9, 2012 by Villain

Arete · March 9, 2012

Are you comparing scientists to a jury?

No I'm using an analogy to try and demonstrate the difference between a conclusion drawn on the documented investigation of evidence by others and one drawn from a blind faith position.

Villain · March 9, 2012

No I'm using an analogy to try and demonstrate the difference between a conclusion drawn on the documented investigation of evidence by others and one drawn from a blind faith position.

I'm saying that the individual scientist can only verify so much himself and requires faith in order to move forward in science, lest he recreate everything from scratch. And on a separate related point if the individual scientist regards science as a broad subject to be of any worth he requires faith for similar reasons.

**imatfaal** · March 9, 2012

I'm saying that the individual scientist can only verify so much himself and requires faith in order to move forward in science, lest he recreate everything from scratch. And on a separate related point if the individual scientist regards science as a broad subject to be of any worth he requires faith for similar reasons.

Even if you do count as equivalent (and I don't) the trust that a scientist has in fellow researchers before her or in different areas of science and the faith that a believer might have in the the bible or in personal revelation; there remains the fact that one can be tested and the other cannot. A practising scientist could wake one morning and decide to test something he had previously taken on trust from the body of physical knowledge - and some scientists do just that - and he could carry on doing that till he was relying on no one's knowledge but his own and a few mathematical axiomata. This pursuit might turn out to have been a dreadful waste of time, talent, and money - it will almost certainly end up showing the same thing as was shown by the original experimenter. This likelihood is because many other contemporaries of the original experimenter will have tested his ideas at the time - if they fail at that point they just don't get into the canon of knowledge. But the test CAN be made.

The same practising scientist could not wake up and actually decide to reprove the validity of another person's faith in the bible

I do not equate the scientific trust in the canon of knowledge and the religious faith needed to accept the bible and/or personal revelation; whilst both are a belief that something personally untested will be true, one is based on a web of scientific relationships which would tend to root out error, the other is based on emotional responses that are unable to provide any negative restraining feedback.

ajb · March 9, 2012

Faith: belief that is not based on proof

This is the key distinction here.

I am saying that this is what leaves room for the Bible as such to be considered evidence. If scientists can trust and accept theories that they have not personally proved or disproved then there is room for religion.

Trust is earned and can be removed. Faith is not like that.

I trust, lets say biologists that evolution is a real biological phenomena, not because I understand or have tested every aspect of that phenomena, but rather because I know that as a whole the biological community has worked to a standard that is appropriate. The biological community accepts evolution due to the evidence they accept.

What do you think the Bible be used as evidence for?

Villain · March 9, 2012

Even if you do count as equivalent (and I don't) the trust that a scientist has in fellow researchers before her or in different areas of science and the faith that a believer might have in the the bible or in personal revelation; there remains the fact that one can be tested and the other cannot. A practising scientist could wake one morning and decide to test something he had previously taken on trust from the body of physical knowledge - and some scientists do just that - and he could carry on doing that till he was relying on no one's knowledge but his own and a few mathematical axiomata. This pursuit might turn out to have been a dreadful waste of time, talent, and money - it will almost certainly end up showing the same thing as was shown by the original experimenter. This likelihood is because many other contemporaries of the original experimenter will have tested his ideas at the time - if they fail at that point they just don't get into the canon of knowledge. But the test CAN be made. The same practising scientist could not wake up and actually decide to reprove the validity of another person's faith in the bible I do not equate the scientific trust in the canon of knowledge and the religious faith needed to accept the bible and/or personal revelation; whilst both are a belief that something personally untested will be true, one is based on a web of scientific relationships which would tend to root out error, the other is based on emotional responses that are unable to provide any negative restraining feedback.

Science is verified by science, it is no more or less self appointed than God.

**Phi for All** · March 9, 2012

I'm saying that the individual scientist can only verify so much himself and requires faith in order to move forward in science, lest he recreate everything from scratch. And on a separate related point if the individual scientist regards science as a broad subject to be of any worth he requires faith for similar reasons.

Remember that the scientist has peers who review evidence and test conclusions even when the scientist can't. Those other scientists get an almost equal amount of recognition for finding flaws and refuting evidence and falsifying hypotheses. Within the scientific community, someone is always testing virtually every theory almost constantly, looking to reduce the uncertainty in what we see as the best supported explanations for various phenomena. Science is constantly honing and polishing and tossing out what no longer works.

Can you really say that about religion? Isn't most religious doctrine considered sacred and practically etched in stone within a particular denomination? And when things do change in religion, they rarely make sense to me.

It was a venial sin for Catholics to eat meat on Fridays, but Vatican II lifted the restriction that had been in place since the 9th century. It can only be assumed that those who died prior to Vatican II without confessing about their Friday night brisket would still be staked out in Purgatory while their post-Vatican II counterparts get to pick the beef out of their smile on their way to Heaven. And while the Catholic Church considers itself to be infallible, the Pope was only granted this prestige in the late 19th century, where he promptly gave retroactive infallibility to all the popes before him. Nice trick, no rhyme or reason, solved a bunch of problems without the need for a time machine.

Villain · March 9, 2012

Faith: belief that is not based on proof

This is the key distinction here.

Trust is earned and can be removed. Faith is not like that.

I trust, lets say biologists that evolution is a real biological phenomena, not because I understand or have tested every aspect of that phenomena, but rather because I know that as a whole the biological community has worked to a standard that is appropriate. The biological community accepts evolution due to the evidence they accept.

What do you think the Bible be used as evidence for?

You state that trust is earned and that you trust the biological community not because of your understanding or tested evidence of every aspect, but because you trust the community. Am I reading this correctly?

How does this differ from religion?

ajb · March 9, 2012

Am I reading this correctly?

More or less.

How does this differ from religion?

Because I have some idea of the standards they work to. In particular they follow the scientific method. Your minister will not follow the scientific method but rather spout religious dogma.

**imatfaal** · March 9, 2012

Science is verified by science, it is no more or less self appointed than God.

No.

Science is not an agent - scientists are agents. Anyone with enough time, money, and effort can verify anything that can be claimed as verifiable science - in this they will become a de facto scientist, but they will not become science. Science rests upon science as I have already admitted - but the foundations are not sacrosanct and inviolate, they are readily testable and changeable. In small ways science changes itself regularly - tweaks here revisions there, and every so often it changes radically; if it were based on faith this change would be impossible and uncalled for.

Science is not self-appointed by the very simple fact that science has no self nor ability to appoint anything. To characterise science as an entity is quite incorrect - it might be thought of as a population, with rules, quirks, systems of thought, and social mores; but any attempt to define it as monolithic misses the entire point. God being self-appointed begs the question of the existence of God.

Villain · March 9, 2012

Remember that the scientist has peers who review evidence and test conclusions even when the scientist can't. Those other scientists get an almost equal amount of recognition for finding flaws and refuting evidence and falsifying hypotheses. Within the scientific community, someone is always testing virtually every theory almost constantly, looking to reduce the uncertainty in what we see as the best supported explanations for various phenomena. Science is constantly honing and polishing and tossing out what no longer works.

I think your post should read: Remember that we(I) believe that scientists, even though I cannot realistically be expected to prove this belief, have peers who review.....

Your belief or idea that this is happening is not based on evidence witnessed by you and therefore how can you be certain it is happening? Have you witnessed everything? I'm saying that belief or trust or whatever you want to call it is required to think science as a greater art/exercise/study has merit and therefore the same should at least be entertained towards religion. Saying that the system of science is based purely on evidence is a oxymoron as far as a persons perspective is concerned and our perspective is the way in which we relate to the world at large.

Ophiolite · March 9, 2012

I'm saying that the individual scientist can only verify so much himself and requires faith in order to move forward in science, lest he recreate everything from scratch. And on a separate related point if the individual scientist regards science as a broad subject to be of any worth he requires faith for similar reasons.

A scientist can determine directly for himself that the scientific method is a practical, effective method of determining how certain phenomena work. He or she will do this likely in a specialised area of research. Within that area they will be able to verify by experiment and observation that such and such seems to be the case. They can compare their results with the results of others performed from different perspectives and find their hypothesis is validated, or in need of modification.

They can do this for a lifetime and thus demonstrate in a specific field that the scientific method is a reliable one. No faith is required for this. They can then examine the work of other scientists in other fields and observe that they are employing the same methodology. It requires no faith to expect the same methodology to produce the same results. Thus they can readily accept provisionally all findings reported by scientists in other fields that have been derived by the scientific method.

Notice the two qualifiers: accept and provisionally. I do not believe findings of scientists. I accept those findings. I do so provisionally because all scientific findings are provisional. And still there is no need at any point for faith.

Villain · March 9, 2012

No.

Science is not an agent - scientists are agents. Anyone with enough time, money, and effort can verify anything that can be claimed as verifiable science - in this they will become a de facto scientist, but they will not become science. Science rests upon science as I have already admitted - but the foundations are not sacrosanct and inviolate, they are readily testable and changeable. In small ways science changes itself regularly - tweaks here revisions there, and every so often it changes radically; if it were based on faith this change would be impossible and uncalled for.

Science is not self-appointed by the very simple fact that science has no self nor ability to appoint anything. To characterise science as an entity is quite incorrect - it might be thought of as a population, with rules, quirks, systems of thought, and social mores; but any attempt to define it as monolithic misses the entire point. God being self-appointed begs the question of the existence of God.

Does science assume nothing?

Sign In

The faith of scientists

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ajb

Villain

Klaynos

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information