Science is based on faith?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

This seems like a more polite version of Tim Minchin's "Storm".. so everyone just watch storm and well mark science down for a win

most relevant quote from the poem:

"You're so sure of your position
But you're just closed-minded.
I think you'll find that your faith in science and tests
is just as blind as the faith of any fundamentalist"
"Wow, that's a good point, let me think for a bit;
Oh wait, my mistake, That's absolute bullshit.
Science adjusts its views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation
so that belief can be preserved
If you show me that, say, Homeopathy works,
then I will change my mind,
I'll spin on a fucking dime,
I'll be embarrassed as hell,
but I will run through the streets yelling,
"It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory! And while its memory
of a long lost drop of onion juice seems infinite
it somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!'
You show me that it works and how it works
and when I've recovered from the shock,
I will take a compass and carve 'fancy that'
on the side of my cock."

Dawkings has it covered.

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

tldr version, Faith is belief not based on any evidence, science is based on evidence which is independently tested and verified and peer reviewed by other scientists to prove it correct. If a scientific theory is proved incorrect then it is changed to reflect the evidence.

Jacco:
I don't watch EC so I don't know the context in which they said that but science as science can never TRUELY be proven. We can be 99.99999999999 ad nauseum % sure but we can never be 100% sure.

For instance, we know gravity works because we interact with it every day. But its still a "theory" as we don't completely understand it, hence the name "Theory of Gravity." Evolution is the same way. We think it happened and is happening and have evidence to support that, however we can never proof 100% that evolution is real. That's what science is. A constant revision of what we think we understand to something more likely.

Coincidentally, that is my main issue with the theist/athiest argument. Neither side can ever truly prove their side and eventually, when you dig far enough, both come down to "because that's what I think." But both sides claim evidence/lack of evidence as validation of 100% certainty. It's a nasty can of worms.

Thank you for succinctly saying everything that I could possibly want to contribute on this matter.

I've tried explaining to people that everything comes down to "this is what I choose to think" and I usually get nasty responses, from theists and atheists.

I don't know I took it not so much as scientists having faith (though I might have misunderstood their position on this) as ordinary people having faith in scientists.

Basically the scientific process in a nutshell is "I observed something happen to something else. I then conducted an experiment trying to figure out why the thing I saw happened the way it did. I meticulously recorded my experiment so other people can do it and see if they can get the same result. If other people get the same result I know my experiment was done correctly and that its results are valid."
This is why scientific peer review is so important. Human error is a very real thing because no one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. That said I don't have the means or the knowledge to test another person's results. I cannot read about something in the news and go "Hm, I'm not entirely sure about his method." And attempt to dupilcate the experiment because I lack the equipment and thousands of dollars in funding. Since I cannot personally observe the experiment and its results I must take on faith the scientific community's word that the experiment was conducted properly and the results are valid.

Normally this is pretty easy to do. I like scientists, I like to think they know what they're doing better than I do. However that faith in the scientific method wavers in cases where a scientist or a doctor or some other respected professional might have some reason to...skew their results one way or another. Which has happened because once again scientists are human and we all make mistakes. This is why heavily politicized scientific topics meet so much resistance among some people. I myself have a little trouble believing new "groundbreaking" scientific evidence concerning diet because for the past ten years it seems like nobody has been able to decide if milk is actually good for me or not.

Science is based on faith. Faith that you know your skills, proofs, data and documentation are correct. Faith does not necessarily equate to religion. Keep that in mind.

Joccaren:

Jacco:
Evolution is the same way. We think it happened and is happening and have evidence to support that, however we can never proof 100% that evolution is real.

You were going well up until here. This is false. Evolution is like Gravity: It is real. What the Theory of Evolution is, is like the theory of Gravity - it doesn't say "Gravity Might exist" or "Evolution Might exist", it says "Gravity exists, and this is how it might work" or "Evolution exists, and this is how it might work".
Anything based on observation can be assumed to be 100% true, as we're not going to go into the whole philosophy side of things like the brain in the jar as they are utterly irrelevant to how this universe works. We see creatures slowly change over several generations, including, most prominently, humans, as well as bacteria doing the same thing within minutes. We know that Evolution exists. How it works is what we have to question.

Also, we have to explore how it has happened in the past, and that's where people tend to get really pissed off.

The faith in science, as EC pointed out, stems from the belief that patterns exist in nature, that we are capable of perceiving patterns in nature and that we are capable of perceiving the real world (as opposed to a world that complies with our personal biases, such as a dream, or a world constructed for us, such as a Matrix like reality, or a host of other possibilities as well).

This call for faith itself is no different than the faith that various religion demands. The only difference comes in how that faith is applied. To deny the existence of faith in science is to deny the postulates that make all of science possible.

Mimsofthedawg:

The thing is that people perspectives and cultural experiences shapes their understanding of the world. Not only does this allow science to be a form of faith (something like 80% of people would do something simply because a guy in a lab coat says to do it), but they could be blind to solutions to problems, or they could make up evidence that doesn't exist (see BOTH evolution and Creation... both are full of indescrepencies, and neither person from either side of the debate is willing to give the other room to explain themselves. It's classic "faith wars").

At the same time, the faith that humans can overcome problems through irrational logic and reason (which is another root of science) has led us to some of the greatest discoveries, and will likely be what leads us to even greater.

I absolutely agree with the idea that science is a type of faith - or at least the way western culture worships it.

Sorry, but what a load of bollocks. Specially the part about creationism and evolution. If you haven't noticed, the only place where this dicussion is seriously debated is the US. In the rest of the world this isn't even a topic.
And both sides had at least a few hundred times to explain them self.

But when the creationists are saying the Earth is only 6'000 years old and one can bring up a few dozen things that prove their basic premises wrong, what else is there to talk about? This "thesis" got debunked over and over again. Also why try to prove X has created Y, when you can't even prove that X exists in the first place <.<
If i'd tell you my rocket powered flying Go-kart shoots flaming chimps, you'd probably not say "It definitly can't shoot flaming chimps", right?

Also about the "A scientist can claim anything and everyone believes it" part. Are you referring to complete idiots or to the majority of people?
You know that new findings get peer reviewed and tested by other scientists and professionals before it is accepted by the scientific community? There's not just 1 guy, who can shout out some dogmas and suddenly millions of people change their way of living. There has to be evidence, it has to be reproduce-able etc. etc.
Also even if a group claims X, contrary to believers, a secular person doesn't have to agree with them on X and nothing bad will happen to that person if he doesn't accept that.
Some other guys get told they burn for all eternity..

2 other points:
Can you explain me, which problems we can solve only through faith? It seems you imply, there's something we couldn't do by a secular way of living and since such a situation never occured to me, i'm intrigued to hear more about that.

And last but not least: What exactly does the western culture worship? Science? And how do we do that? Can't wrap my head around this.
Are we praising math? Or chemistry? Or do we thank our researchers everday that we got our flu shots? I don't get it.

Edit: @Syntax Error
Nope, faith is strongly connected to religion. Faith for me mean, i don't need a logical conclusion - everything can be irrational and i just have to take a "leap" in my mind and everything is still fine.
What you describe is "trust". I don't "believe" in my skills. I expirienced first hand what i can do, i can guess how hard/easy a certain task would be for me and then i can trust myself that i'm able to do it - or not.
For things i've evidence, a logical conclusion or just mere examination, i can trust - i don't need faith for that.

TAdamson:
Yeah, I wanted to slap extra credits for this.

Science isn't based on faith. It's completely the opposite. Science is based on scepticism. It's a process of elimination where you test hypotheses one by one and reject the ones that fail. You keep doing this until you end up with the one you cannot reject that best explains the phenomena that you are observing.

Really what scientists have "faith" in is that the peer review process works.

I think you're misunderstanding what was meant by "faith" in this context. By faith it's not meant to mean belief in a God but rather believing in something without being absolutely certain. It's really more of epidemiological argument - we can never be 100% certain anything we observe. Science is built on the assumption that what we observe is correct - one can change their interpretation of an observation but the observation itself is assumed to be correct. The assumption that what we observe is correct is the basic "faith" that science is based on.

Rednog:
I saw the episode and I had to rub my temples for a good 5 minutes to just get the stupid out. I've noticed that when it comes to "debates" EC tries too hard to take this moderate stance and by doing so they shoot their argument in the foot. They are using the definition of "faith" in the most ludicrously broad sense. And the problem with this is they are trying to make parallels but at the same time avoiding any concrete definition. This ends up being the biggest downfall of the argument because while you can argue that sure you can maybe apply this word in the broadest sense, it isn't really the best fitting word because the ideas/concepts/practice behind the two ends of the spectrum are completely different.

How exactly would you define "faith" then? I always thought it meant "to have belief in something that can't be absolutely proven". I couldn't find any serious flaws in the argument and don't really see why using the term faith should be so detrimental.

...Extra Credits?

Shoot him! Cut out his tongue! Shoot him AND cut out his tongue! And then shoot his tongue! And trim his scraggly beard...

---

Y'know, I remember nearly being lynched by LJers for trying to explain that science takes a modicum of faith on which to start. Just for the very fact of avoiding having to invent science every time you want to test a hypothesis. And it's because science worshipers get this knee-jerking over-reaction when you apply the word "faith" to their beloved creed.

That reaction is that they think we're saying that science requires faith equal to the faith of people who randomly believe in an invisible omniscient person who spanks naughty people with lightning instead of a belt.

Nimbus:
My only problem with the videos is that they are saying assumptions and beliefs are the exact same thing, to the point where they use the words interchangeably. I really don't see this as the case.

Like this guy. No, that's not what they were saying, and they even took the time to explain how religious faith and scientific faith differ. Stop knee-jerking so outrageously.

TAdamson:
Yeah, I wanted to slap extra credits for this.

Science isn't based on faith. It's completely the opposite.

You too, you're just over-reacting. They very clearly said that faith in our observations was merely a starting point, the beginnings of a foundation in which we can build logic and reasoning. They, in fact, pointed out that science is NOT BASED IN FAITH, but still needed faith as initial thrust. Were you even really listening, or did you instantly get pissed and stopped paying attention?

A true scientist wouldn't just immediately get angry at someone's opinion... they'd want to test that opinion into the ground. But that's not what you're doing, neither of you, you're blindly getting angry at a perceived threat to your dogma. You're turning science into a religion... which is, frankly, more insulting than the idea that I have to believe in some base ideas to be able to practice science.

@gritch

Noun

1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Synonyms
belief - trust - confidence - credence - credit

The point is, if i've faith, i'll have no doubt about it. I'm sure of X, without knowing anything about it - and even if proven wrong, i'll not deride from my path.

That's not how sciences worked, works or ever is going to work.

There is doubt, there is curiosity and there is a drive to unravel new things, which even make old theories useless, but that's not going to stop us from learning more about the universe/world we live in.

So jeah, i prefer "trust" over "faith".

TAdamson:
Yeah, I wanted to slap extra credits for this.

Science isn't based on faith. It's completely the opposite. Science is based on scepticism. It's a process of elimination where you test hypotheses one by one and reject the ones that fail. You keep doing this until you end up with the one you cannot reject that best explains the phenomena that you are observing.

Really what scientists have "faith" in is that the peer review process works.

Thanks for pointing this out. My eyes nearly popped when I heard the absurd assertion that science requires faith. The exact opposite is true.

I was actually considering watching some EC again, but if they've gone this far over the edge into non-video game territory, I don't think I will.

Its not based on faith at all... Science is about gathering as much evidence as you can to find the most likely answer. We know its not 100% correct all the time. Its just what we have at the moment and is normally close enough to correct for us to use anyway.

LetalisK:
Thanks for pointing this out. My eyes nearly popped when I heard the absurd assertion that science requires faith. The exact opposite is true.

I was actually considering watching some EC again, but if they've gone this far over the edge into non-video game territory, I don't think I will.

What fervor, you're almost like a religious zealot...

"They said something against my beloved Science (praise be its name)! I can't associate myself with them anymore! I have to quickly erase all of my EC files and burn them with the holy flame of Logic's wrath!"

Seriously, try to find a more effective way to demonstrate that you're a fanatical believer. Meanwhile, anyone with an actual open mind would contemplate the idea, analyze the information given, and come to a rational conclusion. Even someone who disagrees would just think they're wrong in this case. But not you... you, very clearly, didn't do that.

Huzza for worthless philosophies like this!

No, you can never truly know anything. You can't know if what you just proved right is really right. You can't know if you can't actually know something 100% either. Maybe we can know something 100%, we don't know, but maybe we can, or maybe we can't, We don't know!

LetalisK:

TAdamson:
Yeah, I wanted to slap extra credits for this.

Science isn't based on faith. It's completely the opposite. Science is based on scepticism. It's a process of elimination where you test hypotheses one by one and reject the ones that fail. You keep doing this until you end up with the one you cannot reject that best explains the phenomena that you are observing.

Really what scientists have "faith" in is that the peer review process works.

Thanks for pointing this out. My eyes nearly popped when I heard the absurd assertion that science requires faith. The exact opposite is true.

I was actually considering watching some EC again, but if they've gone this far over the edge into non-video game territory, I don't think I will.

The context of the video was how religion is treated in games. The whole "science is partially based on faith" was about 1 or 2 minutes of the 2 part video, so it wasn't the focus. Unless of course they made a new video about it that I haven't seen yet.

That being said, on some level you do need faith in mathematics and science, specific examples being axioms. The very definition of an axiom is that we accept it to be true without any mathematical proof. They can't be derived by deduction or anything else, we just have faith that they are universally true. You can try to be a skeptic about universally held axioms, like Euclid's fifth postulate (if two lines intersect a third line with the same angle, those two lines are parallel in Euclidean geometry), but you just have to accept it's true in all cases specified because it is not provable.

Although, it is a different type of faith than in religion. In religion, you have faith in something for which there is no discernible evidence. However, the things you do have faith for in science produce results; after all, we use the fifth postulate because it does indeed work.

Then again, religious people say that their faith does end up with results; believing in their god resulted in good fortune, or a certain person being more moral, for example.

Esotera:

Did they actually do a whole episode on this? It doesn't seem to have much to do with gaming...

it doesn't.

before the new years break they did a two part 'Religion in gaming' vid, apparently they came back to find some rather hateful or misinformed comments, and in such number they felt the need to say something about it.

hence this weeks ep.

Pebkio:

LetalisK:
Thanks for pointing this out. My eyes nearly popped when I heard the absurd assertion that science requires faith. The exact opposite is true.

I was actually considering watching some EC again, but if they've gone this far over the edge into non-video game territory, I don't think I will.

What fervor, you're almost like a religious zealot...

"They said something against my beloved Science (praise be its name)! I can't associate myself with them anymore! I have to quickly erase all of my EC files and burn them with the holy flame of Logic's wrath!"

Seriously, try to find a more effective way to demonstrate that you're a fanatical believer. Meanwhile, anyone with an actual open mind would contemplate the idea, analyze the information given, and come to a rational conclusion. Even someone who disagrees would just think they're wrong in this case. But not you... you, very clearly, didn't do that.

Well, gee golly, righteous biting criticism sure cut me to the core. I have to go reassess my whole life now.

Edit: Btw, if you had actually bothered to read my post, you'd have noticed my reason for not revisiting their videos was because I thought they had strayed from their game discussions, not because they dared disagree with me on something. But don't let that tiny little detail stop you.

cdstephens:
The context of the video was how religion is treated in games. The whole "science is partially based on faith" was about 1 or 2 minutes of the 2 part video, so it wasn't the focus.

That being said, on some level you do need faith in mathematics and science, specific examples being axioms. The very definition of an axiom is that we accept it to be true without any mathematical proof. They can't be derived by deduction or anything else, we just have faith that they are universally true. You can try to be a skeptic about universally held axioms, like Euclid's fifth postulate (if two lines intersect a third line with the same angle, those two lines are parallel in Euclidean geometry), but you just have to accept it's true in all cases specified because it is not provable.

Although, it is a different type of faith than in religion. In religion, you have faith in something for which there is no discernible evidence. However, the things you do have faith for in science produce results; after all, we use the fifth postulate because it does indeed work.

Then again, religious people say that their faith does end up with results; believing in their god resulted in good fortune, or a certain person being more moral, for example.

Thanks for providing a much better response to my admittedly knee-jerk reaction. Now I'm actually more interested in looking at this video.

LetalisK:

Pebkio:

LetalisK:
Thanks for pointing this out. My eyes nearly popped when I heard the absurd assertion that science requires faith. The exact opposite is true.

I was actually considering watching some EC again, but if they've gone this far over the edge into non-video game territory, I don't think I will.

What fervor, you're almost like a religious zealot...

"They said something against my beloved Science (praise be its name)! I can't associate myself with them anymore! I have to quickly erase all of my EC files and burn them with the holy flame of Logic's wrath!"

Seriously, try to find a more effective way to demonstrate that you're a fanatical believer. Meanwhile, anyone with an actual open mind would contemplate the idea, analyze the information given, and come to a rational conclusion. Even someone who disagrees would just think they're wrong in this case. But not you... you, very clearly, didn't do that.

Well, gee golly, righteous biting criticism sure cut me to the core. I have to go reassess my whole life now.

cdstephens:
The context of the video was how religion is treated in games. The whole "science is partially based on faith" was about 1 or 2 minutes of the 2 part video, so it wasn't the focus.

That being said, on some level you do need faith in mathematics and science, specific examples being axioms. The very definition of an axiom is that we accept it to be true without any mathematical proof. They can't be derived by deduction or anything else, we just have faith that they are universally true. You can try to be a skeptic about universally held axioms, like Euclid's fifth postulate (if two lines intersect a third line with the same angle, those two lines are parallel in Euclidean geometry), but you just have to accept it's true in all cases specified because it is not provable.

Although, it is a different type of faith than in religion. In religion, you have faith in something for which there is no discernible evidence. However, the things you do have faith for in science produce results; after all, we use the fifth postulate because it does indeed work.

Then again, religious people say that their faith does end up with results; believing in their god resulted in good fortune, or a certain person being more moral, for example.

Thanks for providing a much better response to my admittedly knee-jerk reaction. Now I'm actually more interested in looking at this video.

I'd look into the ones that say "religion in video games". I haven't seen their latest one today (I edited my post trying to do so before someone quoted me, but alas).

The key argument here is over what constitutes evidence, and what constitutes proof. As you say, science changes all the time, yet the idea behind it encompasses this fact and so allows it to develop and incorporate new ideas. These ideas may be considered undeniably fact, until a new discovery is made that finds a loophole in the logic used to prove the initial idea. Then a new idea is developed that encompasses the current understanding of the laws of nature.
That's how science works.

Religion works in one of three ways.
1) I believe this. Science says that. Sod science, I can believe what I want.
2) I believe this. Other people believe that. The evidence can support either position depending on original biases, so I'll stick with my beliefs.
3)I believe this. It's beyond science, and so can't be proved nor disproved.

Idea 1) is what causes so many arguments, and what most "scientists" reject all religion as.
Idea 2) is what creationism vs evolution fits into.
Idea 3) is what the existence of heaven falls into, alongide my invisible pet elephant.

Well, no, science is based off of a certain amount of BELIEF, yes, but faith and belief are not the same things.

Scientific belief is based off of whether something can be proven or reproduced under reasonable experimental conditions. You cannot claim something as truth until it is proven through evidence.

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence, or contrarily to it. Faith is the lack of change when confronted with evidence conflicting with ones belief.

Jacco:

For instance, we know gravity works because we interact with it every day. But its still a "theory" as we don't completely understand it, hence the name "Theory of Gravity." Evolution is the same way. We think it happened and is happening and have evidence to support that, however we can never proof 100% that evolution is real. That's what science is. A constant revision of what we think we understand to something more likely.

Coincidentally, that is my main issue with the theist/athiest argument. Neither side can ever truly prove their side and eventually, when you dig far enough, both come down to "because that's what I think." But both sides claim evidence/lack of evidence as validation of 100% certainty. It's a nasty can of worms.

No.

no.
nnnnno!

Wrong. No.

no...

It's people saying stuff like that which misleads so many in the first place, and the worse part is that lots of the time it's the ones on the side of science who bring it up, meaning they don't actually know what they're talking about in the first place, and only add fuel to the misassumptions of others >.<
((I'm sure some other people will likely grill you for this too XD But hey, it is a pretty important thing to have corrected))

Gravity is NOT a theory.
Evolution is NOT a theory.

The phenomenon of gravity, and of evolution are 100% not even up for question indisputable FACT.

The theory part is the how. Scientific theories are based around explaining how or why we see a certain phenomenon or result. eg. There is this thing called gravity, it does this, the scientific theory we have it that *xzy* is the reason why and how.
People convolute the matter horrible by using nick-names for the theories instead of their real name. For instance, it's not 'the theory of evolution', it would be far more accurate to shorten it to 'the theory of natural selection'. Evolution was never the theory.

All science works on the assumption that causality is a thing.

We can never really be sure that causality is a thing. It might not be a thing and everything we think is a think isn't a thing at all.

LetalisK:
...Now I'm actually more interested in looking at this video.

You didn't even watch the video?! I'd say my righteous criticism was fully justified. I might be overflowing with angry right now, but I am going to tell you one thing that you need to know:

Do not kid yourself. Science my be based in logic, but you have faith in science like Christians have faith in God. There are plenty of scientists out there who reason, consider and work tirelessly to elevate science above old beliefs of infallible occurrences, and so science isn't based on faith. You, on the other hand, are no different from a Fundamentalist; you judge without consideration, you immediately attack what you perceive as a dogmatic threat, and you don't even bother to witness something before condemning the people involved.

You might have said it as sarcasm, but you really DO need to reassess your life. At least... you do if you don't want to be perceived as a zealot.

xPixelatedx:
snip

Of course science isn't infallible. It's a human endeavor! It'd be shocking if it was infallible.

However, to say it's based on "faith" because of this is an enormous leap of logic.

Many religions certainly are. They make claims and expects their tenants to accept those claims as "gospel" without a shred of quantifiable evidence; only qualitative evidence. In many ways, many religions state answers and then rewrite the questions to fit.

Science does the opposite. (usually) It asks questions and searches for the answers. Sometimes it will conceive of a guess as to what the answer might be. But the beauty of science is, if the actual answer ends up proving the previous theory(ies) wrong, science adapts to the new findings.

That's not "faith" based. The only time faith enters into the equation is when we put our faith, and trust, into those performing the science.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I think the real issue here; with regards to ECs claims as well as many posting; too many are confusing "faith" and "assumption".

Direct from Webster:

Faith -
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Assumption -

1 a : the taking up of a person into heaven
b capitalized : August 15 observed in commemoration of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary
2 : a taking to or upon oneself <the assumption of a new position>
3 : the act of laying claim to or taking possession of something <the assumption of power>
4 : arrogance, pretension
5 a : an assuming that something is true
b : a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted
6 : the taking over of another's debts

The notable entries being "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" for faith and "an assuming that something is true" for assumption.

Science assumes an answer and attempts to prove it. If it the claim is wrong, science adjusts.
Faith states something as true and never posits the possibility of it being false.

Ergo, again, science is not "faith based".

Science is not based on faith, at least not in a religious sense (but then neither are many religions. Their overly Christian-centered analysis of religion left that out. It was an episode where the fact that they didn't do their homework was painfully obvious).

However, science is based on unproven assumptions, as all paradigms are. And often acknowledging this fact makes people who are anti-theists for all the wrong reasons uncomfortable. Especially when you point out that the very things they use to bash religion(s) with is applicable to their paradigm.

All paradigms require unproven assumptions in order to structure knowledge. It is impossible to structure knowledge using the knowledge being structured as the source of structure itself. At some point all systems of information must boil down to a set of axioms that cannot be examined by the system itself. Some people don't like that, because they've built up a false notion of science in their head as some kind of god of knowledge whom, if one worships, will allow them to win arguments on the Internet. Which is rather silly, really.

Pebkio:

LetalisK:
...Now I'm actually more interested in looking at this video.

You didn't even watch the video?! I'd say my righteous criticism was fully justified. I might be overflowing with angry right now, but I am going to tell you one thing that you need to know:

Do not kid yourself. Science my be based in logic, but you have faith in science like Christians have faith in God. There are plenty of scientists out there who reason, consider and work tirelessly to elevate science above old beliefs of infallible occurrences, and so science isn't based on faith. You, on the other hand, are no different from a Fundamentalist; you judge without consideration, you immediately attack what you perceive as a dogmatic threat, and you don't even bother to witness something before condemning the people involved.

You might have said it as sarcasm, but you really DO need to reassess your life. At least... you do if you don't want to be perceived as a zealot.

"You didn't even watch the video!?" Uh, yeah. That's why I said my reaction was knee-jerk.

Also, a zealot of WHAT exactly? Not wanting to watch a video that is no longer about video games? Because that was why I wasn't going to return to the series, not because they disagreed with me. I said it in my first post and reiterated it again in an edit to my next post. Do I need to catch you up every time you respond to me?

Edit: And just to clarify so you don't jump on my shit again, "Not wanting to watch a video that I ERRONEOUSLY THOUGHT was no longer about video games?"

Asita:

[snip]

Jacco:

For instance, we know gravity works because we interact with it every day. But its still a "theory" as we don't completely understand it, hence the name "Theory of Gravity." Evolution is the same way. We think it happened and is happening and have evidence to support that, however we can never proof 100% that evolution is real. That's what science is. A constant revision of what we think we understand to something more likely.

Before anyone jumps on this, it's worth pointing out that a Theory is the highest level of explanation in science and that no, a 'proven theory' does not become a 'Law'. The two are distinct concepts, the difference between which is perhaps best described thusly: Laws are observations, Theories are explanations for observations, which is why we have both the Law and Theory of Gravity. The former does not replace the latter, nor does the latter invalidate the former. It's also worth noting that contrary to popular usage, the word "Theory" in science is not used to describe uncertainty (on the contrary, a theory must be very well vetted with the available data to be described as such). Point of fact, the colloquial use of the word 'theory' better fits the scientific term 'hypothesis' than it does the scientific use of the word 'theory'.

[snippity snip]

Thank you for that wonderful clarification. This is an issue laymen are very often confused by and you've explained it in a very elegant way!

While science is based on faith on a very fundamental level I apreciate that almost everything beyond those basic assumptions relies on evidence and repeatability. A single or even a small number of observations aren't enough to say anything conclusivly. What's more, when something enhances our scope of observation science will adjust its views and formulas to match, unlike many faiths which will continue to maintain their views an words in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I guess what I'm trying very inexpertly to say is that while science is based on a fundamental level on faith, it is nothing like -A- faith. It relies on observable and testable phenomena to establish itself without relying on faith for the most part.

Pebkio:

Do not kid yourself. Science my be based in logic, but you have faith in science like Christians have faith in God.

Wrong.

We don't have faith in the science itself. We have "faith" that those teaching us the science aren't lying to us.

Faith only factors into science when you add human nature into the equation.

Vigormortis:
2b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Yeah, okay. Prove to me that what you can see with your eyes is reality and true. Prove to me that when you witness an event that you're seeing all the truths behind that event. Prove to me that all the tools we have for measuring things scientifically are all the tools we will ever have and that no new way of measuring will ever come along to give a new perspectives on old theories.

Of course not, I'm not really asking you to prove something so open-ended and future-centric. However, it IS absence of proof, yet we still have to believe that what we can observe is true. Ergo, even though we are able to refine our understanding of what is true, we still need some faith (by definition 2b-1) in our ability to observe the truth.

Is it practically moot... pretty much, yeah. Is it still a way to show how faith isn't entirely removed from science... pretty much, yeah.

Oh, and they didn't say that science is based on faith. Everyone who uses that phrase is misquoting EC.

Vigormortis:

Wrong.

We don't have faith in the science itself. We have "faith" that those teaching us the science aren't lying to us.

Faith only factors into science when you add human nature into the equation.

I didn't say "You, Vigor, believe..." did I? No, I was talking to LetalisK. Stop projecting onto my posts. If you feel I was addressing you, even though I wasn't, I think YOU'VE got a problem with YOU believing in science.

xPixelatedx:
I know mentioning Extra Credits here is somewhat taboo, but I am not so much interested in them as much as the can of worms they just inadvertently opened. In their recent two videos they pointed out that some of science's roots were grounded in belief, because we are dealing with things we cannot prove (however likely they may be). This started a discussion that caused a lot of people to become rather defensive and upset. They recently made their closing statement on the argument and I have to say I agree with them.
Science is still based on evidence, it just so happens the evidence we currently have for any given topic could be wrong, we might not be seeing the whole picture or the limitation of us being human is whats causing us to error (in other words we will never know the answer). Because of all that we have to take some degree of faith into it to make many of our theories work at all. I just think people are frightened at the idea that science might not be entierly infallible, even though it's usually not a big deal when our facts turn out to be wrong. After all, if we knew everything, we wouldn't learn anything.

What do you guys think?

Science is essentially guided by three assumptions. These can never be proven, but are absolutely neccassary for learning literally anything about the world.
1: The universe exists
2: It is possible to learn about the universe
3: The data our senses deliver is at least sometimes accurate, and is caused by stimulus from the outside universe.
Beyond this there is no faith, and using this method science has gotten results (like the computer I am typing this on) so I will remain mindful of these assumptions but will go along with them for the purpose of learning.

What is this Extra Credit you mention?

Vigormortis:

Pebkio:

Do not kid yourself. Science my be based in logic, but you have faith in science like Christians have faith in God.

Wrong.

We don't have faith in the science itself. We have "faith" that those teaching us the science aren't lying to us.

Faith only factors into science when you add human nature into the equation.

Science must make assumptions which cannot be proven. Whether these count as faith is a matter of semantics.
1: The universe exists
2: It is possible to learn things about the universe
3: Our senses are at least sometimes accurate, and relay information about the outside universe.
These can never be proven, yet are vital ot beggining science or any evidence based learning. We can never know whether what we see and observe through data is correct, and not changed by some unknown entity, or if there really is anything to observe out there, yet we must accept that evidence is a trustworthy means of determining things, which cannot be proven by evidence. As long as we are aware of these assumptions I see no problem with it.

This can be entirely summed up in one easy philosophical concept -
"Cogito Ergo Sum" - "I think, Therefore I am."

The fact that you think proves TO YOU that YOU exist.
No one else can prove to you that they exist.
You can't even prove to yourself that you look the way you do or are seeing what you're seeing, or are where you are.

The ONLY absolute facts that you have are that you think, and that you therefore exist in some form, or else you couldn't think.

Since science is not either of those two things, it is still based entirely upon the experiences that humans think about, and is therefore subject to all the theoretical pitfalls of veracity that all things outside of an individuals own mind are subject to.

You could be imagining gravity.
You could be imagining science.
You could be imagining scientists.
You could be imagining that you breath, that you eat, that you sleep, that you walk, that you talk.

Essentially, yes, science is based on faith.
But it is a faith derived from the most insanely and unimaginably complex series of consistent and super-coherent ideas ever to exist.
That unfathomable, almost certainly unfakeable degree of coherency is where we derive our suspicion that science and reality are almost certainly fact. That near-certainty is where we derive or "faith" in science.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here