Science is NOT faith-based!

Folks--

I put up a blog entry today called "Is Science faith-based?" because I am good and sick of hearing the definition of science abused by the willfully (and woefully) ignorant.

I'm curious about peoples' thoughts on this. I hope this is useful.

Me likes it. Easy to read and understand. Let's hope it's not too much text to read for a creationist stopping by at your site.

Love the footnote regarding denigrating science on a website.

Oh ho! Good stuff.

One of the problems with using 'look at all the awesome technology we have!' examples is that many creationists (particularly those following the Gish philosophy) believe that technology is to blame for the moral corruption of today's society. They want less science because they want less technology. They think that by going back to 1950s lifestyles, we'll go back to 1950s values too. I think they mostly mean sex. So your argument may not reach some of the people who need to hear it most.

Love the idea of someone trying to raise their tv from the dead. Good essay indeed.

The Bad Astronomer said:

I put up a blog entry today called "Is Science faith-based?"

Click to expand...

When you say "The scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules. That’s it." you are not actually disproving the claim that "Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths." I would say that it actually supports it.

because I am good and sick of hearing the definition of science abused by the willfully (and woefully) ignorant.

Click to expand...

Okay, so what is the definition of science? The definition that encompasses all sciences and effectively excludes everything that we all would recognise as not belonging to science. Careful: this is the issue that has sunk more philosophies of science than any other.

tkingdoll said:

They think that by going back to 1950s lifestyles, we'll go back to 1950s values too. I think they mostly mean sex.

Click to expand...

[law=poe]

I doubt it. No one ever had (sex) until the early to mid 1960s. Before then, women simply became pregnant and had babies. There was never any (sex) involved.

It was the hippies' fault; theirs and their commie overlords'. It started with drugs. Drug use leads to (sex), which is why drug use - especially the use of 'The Pill' - is such a sin.

[/law]

Great article. May I quote from "The scientific method makes one assumption..." to the end to my Bible study group?

Thanx!

Earthborn said:

When you say "The scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules. That’s it." you are not actually disproving the claim that "Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths." I would say that it actually supports it.

Click to expand...

In a sense, yes. But the difference is verifiability and success.

All ways of understanding the world rely on some axioms, and there are an infinite number of possible choices for those axioms. So how can we possibly choose between them?

Easy - we pick the ones that work. Science works. Religion doesn't. Don't believe me? Let's try it - you put a curse on me, and I shoot you in the head. You can even go first.

Game over.

I agree, but have a slightly different way of seeing it.

There are really only two axioms or assumptions that science relies upon - parsimony and symmetry. The universe seems to be no more complicated than it needs to be according to what can be observed (there's no reason to assume great complicated mechanisms which cannot be directly or indirectly observed) and of course, the understanding that the rules that govern nature don't change from minute to minute, or between one spacial coordinate and the next.

In themselves, we can't prove them. There could be great big cogs turning outside of observable nature which determine what happens here, which are dependent on the whim of something. The problem is, it is then no longer science, as science involves the construction of useful models based on observation. No useful model can come of trying to anticipate a whimsical system (or mind for that matter).

Faithers often make such comparisons between religion and science in an effort to make them seem comparable as methods to make sense of the world around us. Scientific 'faith', as such, is fundamentally productive in providing useful models. We're prepared to say 'yes, the universe could have totally different rules depending on where you stand, and depending on when you observe them'...then what is the point on making any sort of model?. Amazingly, those models which result are damn useful.

Religious faith, however, fails to provide any such predictability. Using its faith you can't investigate somebody's health, create a medicine and heal them in a manner that is obvious to all regardless of their personal philosophy. You can't design communications networks which are evident to all people independantly of their belief system.

Science does indeed rely on two assumptions. It also has a score of thinking tools which all do their best to ensure that whatever ideas we come up with based on those assumptions, they can be overturned when we see something which contradicts them. Religion possesses no such tools.

Athon

tkingdoll said:

Oh ho! Good stuff.

One of the problems with using 'look at all the awesome technology we have!' examples is that many creationists (particularly those following the Gish philosophy) believe that technology is to blame for the moral corruption of today's society. They want less science because they want less technology. They think that by going back to 1950s lifestyles, we'll go back to 1950s values too. I think they mostly mean sex. So your argument may not reach some of the people who need to hear it most.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, I was really upset recently when I heard a podcast of Christians describing their mission trip to somewhere in Africa. They talked gleefully about how the people there were so amazed at all the technology they had brought with them....... Oh, I thought, if those poor people only knew.

Great article!

Since everyone else is putting in their pet "one assumption that science makes", I think I'll add my own.

Science doesn't require that the universe follows rules, or that the rules are simple, or that the universe is symmetric, or anything like that. Science can admit that some things don't have rules behind them, and that some things are complicated for no reason than that's how things are, and so on.

No, the one assumption science makes is that there is some reliability to our measurements and observation. It doesn't require perfect reliability--we know that our human senses and memory are faulty, for instance, and we have systems (like writing) for improving that. In large part, science is the art of improving the reliability of our findings (double-blind testing, peer review, and so on).

The one thing that no system can deal with, though, is an intelligence so powerful that it can plant faulty evidence, rewrite our records, and fool our senses. And do it so thoroughly that no one is the wiser. The fact that scientific artifacts "work" is no help: perhaps our planes do not actually fly; our knowledge of aerodynamics is wrong, because all our measurements were subtly tampered with, and planes are instead just carried by the hand of God. We would never know; could never know, even in principle.

So above all, science assumes that there is no God, or at least that there is no God that would interfere with our world in this way.

- Dr. Trintignant

athon said:

No useful model can come of trying to anticipate a whimsical system (or mind for that matter).

Click to expand...

It appears that you are a follower of one of those philosophies of science which considers physics to be the example of how all sciences should be. There are of course also sciences that do try to anticipate whimsical systems (or minds for that matter) such as psychology, anthropology, economics...

You can't design communications networks which are evident to all people independantly of their belief system.

Click to expand...

Communication networks are never evident to all people, and never independent of their cultural beliefs. Alexander Graham Bell gave us a communication system that had no evident use for some people with a specific culture; Deaf users of sign language. He was no friend of Sign. It also depends on the belief that everything should be catelogued and numbered including the everyone you may one day wish to speak to, and should be done so using a cultural invention called the decimal number system, which some cultures have not even heard about or believe in its usefulness. All so that people can spread their cultures -- their knowledge and beliefs -- over the communications network.

Other communication systems may work in different ways, but all reflect what the people who made it believed should be communicated, can be communicated and how it should be communicated.

Using its faith you can't investigate somebody's health, create a medicine and heal them in a manner that is obvious to all regardless of their personal philosophy.

Click to expand...

Bad example, as medicine is not at all free of philosophical, cultural and even religious considerations, and neither should it be. Medicine is not just mechanical repair of some machinery, but also the care for 'whimsical systems'. What counts as "illness" and what counts as a "cure" therefore is a value judgement based on philosophical grounds. I think it is rather nice that doctors tend to believe in a philosophy that places a human being's life above that of a tumor, but I don't think they can support that on a purely reductionist physical model.

Wow, you are on fire BA!

My definition of science (with thanks to Randi and Skeptoid):
Science is a search for basic truths about the Universe, a search which develops statements that appear to describe how the Universe works, but which are subject to correction, revision, adjustment, or even outright rejection upon the presentation of better or conflicting evidence.

Earthborn said:

Medicine is not just mechanical repair of some machinery

Click to expand...

Only because we have insufficient knowledge of that machinery. There are no philosophical considerations in car repair, because cars are (relatively) simple machines that can be completely characterized. There is no reason to believe that medicine can't be the same; it is just that our techniques are not advanced enough, and we must rely on cruder measures. Placebo effects and the like have no relevance if we can simply fix all problems directly.

- Dr. Trintignant

Dr. Trintignant said:

Only because we have insufficient knowledge of that machinery.

Click to expand...

We may have insufficient knowledge of the machinery, but that's not the reason. The level of knowledge is largely irrelevant to what I am saying. A higher level of knowledge will allow doctors to manipulate human biology to something even closer to their philosophical idea of what constitutes health, though it may also influence their philosophies.

There are no philosophical considerations in car repair, because cars are (relatively) simple machines that can be completely characterized.

Click to expand...

There are philosophical considerations in car repair, as can be seen on any of the gazillion car/motorcycle repair/customisation shows on discovery. The people in many of those shows seem to believe in a philosophy of "faster is better", and "looking meaner is better". Sometimes they try to make something with a different philosophy, such as "higher fuel economy is better" or "what the customer wants is best".

At the very least, most car mechanics seem to believe that a car is better if it runs than if it is rusting away. That is a value judgement made from their own personal philosophy, and it is not something that is necessarily shared by everyone.

Your blog sounds reasonable to me but the tone sounds a little too harsh for those who are science and philosophy challenged in my opinion.

Earthborn said:

It appears that you are a follower of one of those philosophies of science which considers physics to be the example of how all sciences should be. There are of course also sciences that do try to anticipate whimsical systems (or minds for that matter) such as psychology, anthropology, economics...

Click to expand...

Strangely, I'm of a biology and psychology (well, developmental psych through my education degree) backgrounds. Yet I do agree that ultimately physics is the strongest science, as it is the study of the fundamental laws from which all else arise.

I do realise I wasn't clear in my post by what I meant by truly 'whimsical'. In studying psychology, anthropology etc., it's not whimsy we're studying, but rather the predictability within the system. If I'm investigating the choices made by a group of minds, I'm doing so with view of being able to predict it with some degree of success beyond chance. If it was totally at the discretion of the deciding agent, without being subject to any fundamental rules or laws beneath them, then it would be a truly pointless act.

Luckily psychology is an effort to find predictability in the behaviours of otherwise whimsical agents.

Although, on an interesting side note, I jotted down once an idea for a short story where mankind discovered that there was a pantheon of gods behind nature. Instead of scientists, deistic psychologists arise to try to develop tools to predict how this pantheon would act, again in an effort to predict.

Communication networks are never evident to all people, and never independent of their cultural beliefs. Alexander Graham Bell gave us a communication system that had no evident use for some people with a specific culture; Deaf users of sign language. He was no friend of Sign.

Click to expand...

Cultural in such a context would be born of a physical necessity, not a belief system. Deaf people could still see the use of the telephone for its purpose - to communicate sounds over a distance. The fact they couldn't make use of it is not a result of their belief system.

Other communication systems may work in different ways, but all reflect what the people who made it believed should be communicated, can be communicated and how it should be communicated.

Click to expand...

You've lost me. One of us has missed something. I'm willing to believe I've worded my view poorly, so I'll sit and have a better think about it.

Bad example, as medicine is not at all free of philosophical, cultural and even religious considerations, and neither should it be. Medicine is not just mechanical repair of some machinery, but also the care for 'whimsical systems'. What counts as "illness" and what counts as a "cure" therefore is a value judgement based on philosophical grounds. I think it is rather nice that doctors tend to believe in a philosophy that places a human being's life above that of a tumor, but I don't think they can support that on a purely reductionist physical model.

Click to expand...

What I'm getting at is that the aim of science is always objective. If I state 'compound X will have Y effect on the body', the intended truth of my comment is not dependent on philosophical grounding. Sure, I could be wrong in my interpretation of my observations, hence the statement could be false, but the phenomena it is aiming to describe doesn't vary depending on the philosophical stance of the individual it relates to.

Athon

Earthborn said:

We may have insufficient knowledge of the machinery, but that's not the reason. The level of knowledge is largely irrelevant to what I am saying. A higher level of knowledge will allow doctors to manipulate human biology to something even closer to their philosophical idea of what constitutes health, though it may also influence their philosophies.

Click to expand...

I think I'm starting to see what you're saying now. However our disagreement might stem simply from a consideration of values rather than fundamental philosophies.

For example, 'health' might consist of different values for different people. Some might feel that their perception of an ailment is of greater value to them personally than the ailment itself. Hence having a pain in the foot is ok, so long as they have a state of mind that puts up with it. Others see health as a purely physicochemical state of wellbeing. Pain or no pain, if something is found to be abnormal, they feel it should be fixed.

In your view, these are philosophical stances. I can't disagree with that, however I guess I was using the term in a more fundamental way, such as the epistemology one uses to build belief systems. The way you're using the term I would see more as a hierarchy of values. Ultimately, a broken leg is still a broken leg regardless of the value the individual places in whether it should be fixed or not.

Athon

Maybe it's a nit pick but this sentence

The scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules.

Click to expand...

gives me some trouble. As state above, the assumption is that the universe behaves in a consistent, codifiable manner. Mankind has unraveled some of this consistency in a form that we call "rules" or mathematical statements. The universe does NOT obey these rules, it demonstrates their applicability.

Earthborn said:

There are philosophical considerations in car repair, as can be seen on any of the gazillion car/motorcycle repair/customisation shows on discovery.

Click to expand...

But that is something else entirely. People may have differing goals (a fast car, and efficient car, etc.), but once those goals articulated, no value judgments are necessary. You only need the physics and mechanics of how cars operate. The person doing the work doesn't need to share or even understand why the client wants something done.

Earthborn said:

At the very least, most car mechanics seem to believe that a car is better if it runs than if it is rusting away. That is a value judgement made from their own personal philosophy, and it is not something that is necessarily shared by everyone.

Click to expand...

No. This "philosophy" originated from something else entirely; a belief that a means of moving between places quickly and easily is advantageous. One manifestation of this belief is the car, which was designed with various functions in line with the idea (and other similar ones). The functions can either operate in line with the intent or not, and the goal of the mechanic is to make changes so that the car operates more in line with the intent.

A "mechanic" who believes that rusting cars are better is not actually a mechanic; that person is an artist, or something else.

As I understand it, some members of the Deaf community have come to believe that their condition is not a defect, possibly even an advantage, and in any case do not wish to regain hearing. They are welcome to this view, but just the same, there is such a thing as "normal" hearing. If we wish, we can define this as the state of hearing that gives the greatest survival advantage. And the goal of any audiologist should be to restore hearing to this state.

Perhaps we need people to help others make the best medical choices for them. Regaining hearing for a member of the Deaf community may mean losing that community, and that may be too high a price. But that is not medicine; certainly not what I think of medicine.

- Dr. Trintignant

Dogdoctor said:

Your blog sounds reasonable to me but the tone sounds a little too harsh for those who are science and philosophy challenged in my opinion.

Click to expand...

To some S&P challenged people, a recipe for scrambled eggs is a little too harsh. Breaking open, and then scrambling, frying, and eating those poor little chicken embryos ...