Is science faith-based?

No.


Oh, you want details? OK then.

If you read any antiscience screeds, at some point or...

That's a good question. Is science faith-based?
Yes, you can not observe without a theory.
Norwood Russell Hanson (1924–1967) was an American philosopher of science. Hanson was a pioneer in advancing the argument that observation is theory-laden, that observation language and theory language are deeply interwoven.

How is it not an absurd equivocation to confuse provisional conclusions that follow from an evidence-based methodology with dogmatic faith?

Is science faith-based?

Yes, more so than not around parameters of what is and is not possible. 'Yesterday's science fiction is today's science fact!' The rigidness of their demand for evidence sometimes takes it on faith that they have gotten the whole picture, but this tends to be seen more in the social sciences. Scientists swarm attack like any other group once their faith has been doubted or questioned.

Absolutely not. It's the complete opposite of faith based. It deals with evidence.

You don't see scientists huddling together chanting "Darwin was right....Darwin was right....I know in my heart Darwin was right..."

For me, the scientific method follows from scepticism backed by self-evident pragmatism. I exist in a world that I do not understand, but if I'm hungry,
I need to eat. If I question this, I will suffer and eventually die. The scientific method is simply the best way to obtain knowledge about the world that works
and actually helps me, as opposed to superstition, which doesn't.
But in the end, I'm still stuck with making (implicit) assumptions about the world, even though they are working assumptions and might change.
To completely get rid of assumptions altogether requires pure scepticism, complete ignorance, unknowing etc. however you want to call it.
And that's insanity, so I allow myself to sink back into pragmatism, and run under the assumptions that have worked well in the past, with the full
awareness that still anything I assume might be wrong. Maybe I'm being deceived by Descartes' Malicious Demon or I'm plugged in the Matrix.
How can I know? How can I know anything at all? But I've noticed a beautiful woman having an interest in me and all my questions vanished

I homeschool my children. The only co-op within an hours drive from us is Christian based. Therefore, we use Apologia science materials in our studies.

I will give Apologia props for at least attempting fairness. There are topics I address separately or supplement, but overall they are the least offensive of Christian materials.

You may be interested to know how they present science. The texts stress repeatedly that science cannot prove anything. Evolution and creation are presented somewhat equitably, both with comments stating we weren't there and have no definitive, non-questionable proof.

In the higher level courses less and less creationism is referenced.

I am telling you this because apologia is the most popular Christian homeschooling curriculum. There is a ray of hope.

This is just another attempt at creating a false equivalency. "You have your truth and I have mine, so it's a wash." "You believe in evolution and believe in my god did it, so it's a wash." "You have faith in science and I have faith in my god, so it's a wash." Just dishonest nonsense.

Are you quoting Richard Dawkins?

Yes. Everything is based on faith. Nobody knows everything about anything.

Nice post

I wouldn't say science is based on faith, I would say it is based on specific assumptions about nature.

For instance astronomers assume that all stars shine. Yet, clearly there are objects in the galaxy that do not shine, so they cannot be stars. Yet, it is never asked, "what if stars stop shining, what would they look like?"

Well, they would look like the objects that no longer shine! Unfortunately astronomers call those "exoplanets/planets"!

Science is not faith based, but it can take assumptions on faith, thereby blocking the effective study of nature.

I agree Science involves a study based on experiments not faith.

No. Science is just the process of explaining what is observed through examining the evidence. How those observations and explanations are then interpreted can involve faith, but science as a method of device is not based on faith but on experimentation involving physical things as well as theoretical concepts re physical things.

Science is not faith based.

What is faith based is the way scientists might interpret their observations to suit their subjective bias.

So it depends on the subjective bias of anyone about anything to do with observations of what is being experienced as reality as to whether the interpretations are faith based or neutral in regard to anything which remains open to interpretation.

How do you know?

I think that is exactly what you see when ppl who do not understand the science of a particular topic regularly make assertions. I have 4 STEM degrees, yet I've been lectured by ppl whom I suspect could not pass a HS science test, that I am wrong and science is on their side ("X is true", "it's been proven", "the science is settled", sort of talk).

'Science' when used as an appeal to authority, rather than understood, is reduced to a mere religious belief system.

So: is there no metaphysical postulate in science? Are universals objects of science? Is there no resistance to the change of paradigm, nor has there been any retraction in journals of the field (peer review)?
I think Phil has made a plot mistake. Although that does not imply that the average theist incurs in an erroneous comparison of the efficacy between models.