ryoder 1,590
Quote
This Wikipedia article implies that what drives science is the search for objective truth whereas in practice what drives science is the search for research grant money.
"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014
KelliJ 0
Well, if you want to go far enough you can say everything anyone ever does has some sort of faith involved. The difference is in what role that faith plays in the circumstances.
In religion, if something goes against popular belief, those who are among the faithful try to find the reason without disturbing their long held beliefs, i.e. "it's God's Will".
In science nothing is too grand to be above suspicion and subject to revision, not even theories and supposed concrete facts, if new facts show the old to be wrong.
So, IMHO, we do not take science on faith but rather hold it in a place of constant revision and, I might say, suspicion.
In religion, if something goes against popular belief, those who are among the faithful try to find the reason without disturbing their long held beliefs, i.e. "it's God's Will".
In science nothing is too grand to be above suspicion and subject to revision, not even theories and supposed concrete facts, if new facts show the old to be wrong.
So, IMHO, we do not take science on faith but rather hold it in a place of constant revision and, I might say, suspicion.
nerdgirl 0
QuoteThe question remains, do we take science on faith?
No, we don't. That's why it's science not superstition.
Science requires observable & measurable -- whether in vitro, in vivo or in silico -- experimental data that is shared and repeatable by outside parties. Science also requires causality within the physical or biological realm.
I'm not sure who Davies' polled physicists mentioned in his Op-Ed piece were, but a more scientific (rather than anecdotal) sampling would likely produce a substantively different result.
Is there faith in the progress of science? Perhaps.
Does the experience of doing cutting-edge science -- like being the first person to ever create, characterize, & observe the reactivity of some new molecular compound or family of compounds -- have a profound pseudo/meta-philosophical or deeply meaningful on a purely human level for some? Yes.
Interesting piece by the way.
VR/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
GreyLake 0
Science is fundamentally another faith, seems to me. Granted, (as someone earlier noted), it's more readily revised. It seems unscientific to me for people to assume that we can only be confident in observable facts, considering that our ability to observe is limited by our human senses--for example, microscopy permits us to observe more of what we never knew, showing that we don't know much on our own.
And then we've also discovered that particles, just like animals in the wild, behave differently under observation than they behave unobserved. So much for finding truths in observations!
Science is a faith. Its malleability, though, makes it preferable to religion, with its destructive absolutisms.
. . . And (sadly) in science, like in religion, people can focus on or modify "truth" so as suit their agendas. Neither science nor religion develop truths or facts; people do, and they do as they see fit.
And then we've also discovered that particles, just like animals in the wild, behave differently under observation than they behave unobserved. So much for finding truths in observations!
Science is a faith. Its malleability, though, makes it preferable to religion, with its destructive absolutisms.
. . . And (sadly) in science, like in religion, people can focus on or modify "truth" so as suit their agendas. Neither science nor religion develop truths or facts; people do, and they do as they see fit.
Let's go to candy mountain.
nerdgirl 0
QuoteIt seems unscientific to me for people to assume that we can only be confident in observable facts, considering that our ability to observe is limited by our human senses--for example, microscopy permits us to observe more of what we never knew, showing that we don't know much on our own.
I don't understand your latter statement ... you assert a correlation that because scientific understanding of the properties of electrons (presuming you mean electron microscopy) enables development of that technology that it somehow supports 'science as faith'?
Wouldn't that suggest that the scientific method reveals that which our limited physiological abilities (by the rods & cones in our eyes and neurochemistry of our brains) cannot?
Because humans before Galileo couldn't see the Jovian moons that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Because we didn't understand the role of the lethal factor, edema factor, and protective antigen in anthrax's attack on the body, that didn't mean people couldn't be killed by inhaling Bacillus anthracis spores.
QuoteAnd then we've also discovered that particles, just like animals in the wild, behave differently under observation than they behave unobserved. So much for finding truths in observations!
It seems that you're trying to force the Heisenberg uncertainty principle into a something that it isn't. You can know velocity with limits (very small) on location ... and vice versa. If we couldn't, electron microscopy would not be very useful ... or possible.
Quote. . . And (sadly) in science, like in religion, people can focus on or modify "truth" so as suit their agendas. Neither science nor religion develop truths or facts; people do, and they do as they see fit.
There have been a number (too many) documented cases -- mostly related to pyschology, physiology, and medicine where what you write has been observed. See Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man and Carol Tavris' The Mismeasure of Woman for some vivid examples, among others.
Conversely, the absorption band of iron porphyrin (the active molecule in hemoglobin in red blood cells) is a specific nanometer (nm) wavelength of light in the UV-Vis spectrum - that doesn't change regardless of one's agenda.
Understanding why when the iron atom of hemoglobin is coordinatively bonded to oxygen, your blood is red; when it's devoid of oxygen, it's bluish in color; why lobster's blood appears green (copper); and why when cyanide bonds to the iron porphyrin it's really hard to remove (stronger bond), isn't subject to an agenda ... but the understanding is due to science.
VR/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
GeorgiaDon 379
QuoteThis Wikipedia article implies that what drives science is the search for objective truth whereas in practice what drives science is the search for funding.
This sort of offhand bullshit insult reveals nothing more than your ignorance of what it takes to do scientific research. In my own field (molecular biology/immunology) reagents alone can easily run $2,000+ for a single experiment. How do you propose researchers do anything without a source of funding to pay for it?
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
nerdgirl 0
QuoteThis Wikipedia article implies that what drives science is the search for objective truth whereas in practice what drives science is the search for research grant money.
If one accepts your assertion (which I don't with respect to scientists and question highly w/r/t science), what would you propose to do about it?
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has commented publicly that he think the budget of the NSF should be tripled or quadrupled. Would you concur with that policy recommendation?
VR/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
The word faith can have two different meaning here. One meaning is that God is the explanation. The other meaning is that you just have to except it as “nobody knows
“or “they just are”.
So to answer your question “Do we take science on faith?” which sense do you mean?
Faith/religion has one final explanation for the existence of life: God. No further study or enquiry is needed! It’s the simple; explain all, lazy way of “thinking”!
Science has no final explanation! Its an ongoing research project! Science does not know why the laws of physics exist or where they came from! Lift a ball up in the air and drop it! That’s all we have to work with! The laws of physics where born. Do we know where the ball came from….no! Do we know why it behaves like it does….no! But that doesn’t keep us from giving up!
So no we don’t take science on faith/religion sense! If we did we would no longer study our world. We would still believe that the earth was the center of the universe like the church believed.
Do we take science based on the “they just are” sense? yes we do!
Paul Davies concludes: “The alternative is to regard the laws of physics and the universe they govern as part and parcel of a unitary system, and to be incorporated together within a common explanatory scheme.
In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research.
“or “they just are”.
So to answer your question “Do we take science on faith?” which sense do you mean?
Faith/religion has one final explanation for the existence of life: God. No further study or enquiry is needed! It’s the simple; explain all, lazy way of “thinking”!
Science has no final explanation! Its an ongoing research project! Science does not know why the laws of physics exist or where they came from! Lift a ball up in the air and drop it! That’s all we have to work with! The laws of physics where born. Do we know where the ball came from….no! Do we know why it behaves like it does….no! But that doesn’t keep us from giving up!
So no we don’t take science on faith/religion sense! If we did we would no longer study our world. We would still believe that the earth was the center of the universe like the church believed.
Do we take science based on the “they just are” sense? yes we do!
Paul Davies concludes: “The alternative is to regard the laws of physics and the universe they govern as part and parcel of a unitary system, and to be incorporated together within a common explanatory scheme.
In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research.
GreyLake 0
I agree that science has revealed much more of the world to us than we could have known without science. But science has also revealed that our faculties are so limited that even our most certain discoveries are at best questionable. Worse: false; or worst: specious.
Like in religion, each "answer" leads only to yet another "why." Only in science, we've faith in a "reasonable" explanation. It's as silly as anything.
As for agendas, I think you're missing my drift. By researching, for example, the benefits of coffee drinking, you're bound to find something. So then it makes the news, and textbooks, and so forth. But does that mean it's good for you? Not necessarily; but because some people want to make coffee a good thing, they can make it so by mere focus.
It would be entirely unreasonable of us to assume that humans, with our inevitable and unavoidable emotions and intentions, wouldn't use science to manipulate and create the world we live in not merely physically, but conceptually. We don't even realize it, most of the time.
Science can explain no more or less, essentially, than somebody's god (though science makes more sense than some gods). I wish science could explain everything; then maybe we'd have less murder in the world. But it never will be able to, regarless of the details of the universe it finds. You can believe that science can reveal all the answers, but it would be no more than a belief: faith.
Like in religion, each "answer" leads only to yet another "why." Only in science, we've faith in a "reasonable" explanation. It's as silly as anything.
As for agendas, I think you're missing my drift. By researching, for example, the benefits of coffee drinking, you're bound to find something. So then it makes the news, and textbooks, and so forth. But does that mean it's good for you? Not necessarily; but because some people want to make coffee a good thing, they can make it so by mere focus.
It would be entirely unreasonable of us to assume that humans, with our inevitable and unavoidable emotions and intentions, wouldn't use science to manipulate and create the world we live in not merely physically, but conceptually. We don't even realize it, most of the time.
Science can explain no more or less, essentially, than somebody's god (though science makes more sense than some gods). I wish science could explain everything; then maybe we'd have less murder in the world. But it never will be able to, regarless of the details of the universe it finds. You can believe that science can reveal all the answers, but it would be no more than a belief: faith.
Let's go to candy mountain.
nerdgirl 0
QuoteI agree that science has revealed much more of the world to us than we could have known without science. But science has also revealed that our faculties are so limited that even our most certain discoveries are at best questionable. Worse: false; or worst: specious.
Huh? DNA? Microbes? Gravity? Electromagnetism? Heredity? Combustion? Structure of ice & why ice cubes float? Non-earth centered solar system? I can go on & on. Questionable to whom?
QuoteLike in religion, each "answer" leads only to yet another "why." Only in science, we've faith in a "reasonable" explanation. It's as silly as anything.
No. Just no. You can call gravity "silly" as much as you want to -- it doesn't change it. You can call the laws of thermodynamics as "silly" as you want to - that doesn't change them. You're still not going to get a perpetual motion machine. Whether you think electromagnetism is "silly" or not, a basic understanding of that was required to create the computer at which you type.
QuoteAs for agendas, I think you're missing my drift. By researching, for example, the benefits of coffee drinking, you're bound to find something. So then it makes the news, and textbooks, and so forth. But does that mean it's good for you? Not necessarily; but because some people want to make coffee a good thing, they can make it so by mere focus.
That's not "drift" - that's semantics (to be generous) or confusing science with science policy, public policy based on science, and science communication. (to be more precise & accurate).
You've confused (at least) three different things.
To use your example - science isn't researching the "benefits" of coffee drinking. That's not science. Researching the impact/effects of caffeine or other compounds found in coffee on human physiology in manner that follows the scientific method is science. Textbooks is science education.
"Good for you" in what sense? Taste, environmental impact, social impact, economics (if buying at Starbucks) are all possible factors in a person *choice* to drink coffee.
Who's "they"?
You would probably make a much better case on mis-use of scientific research to go to pharmacology and the few well publicized cases there or the tobacco industry. That's not science; that's mis-use, scientific fraud, & occasionally outright lying.
QuoteScience can explain no more or less, essentially, than somebody's god.
Huh? No. Science has to have a causal force in the physical realm ... otherwise it's not science.
At one point Ben Franklin was accused of usurping the will of God because he approached lightening in a scientific manner and invented lightening rods ... which when placed on church steeples substantially decreased the 'supernatural' effects of lightening during sermons.
Correlation is not causality.
VR/Marg
p.s. w/r/t murder, science has provided one causal factor particularly relevant to the US crime rates: lead.
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
kallend 2,142
Quote
Rubbish.
A little too easily dismissed given the pedigree of the scientist.
Among other awards Paul Davies has won the Templeton Prize, The Royal Society's Michael Faraday Prize for science communication and a Glaxo Science Writers' Fellowship. In April 1999 the asteroid 1992 OG was officially named (6870) Pauldavies in his honour.
The question remains, do we take science on faith?
That makes a difference?
Explain how scientific research on, say earthquake prediction is faith based just because we can't (yet) explain why the Lamb constant has the value we measure in a quantum physics experiment. If some theoretical physicist comes up with an explanation for the fundamental constants how exactly will that effect HIV/AIDS research?
All this arrticle shows is that a few cosmologists, your quoted author among them, have a tendency to delusions of grandeur, believing that they alone are looking in the face of God. Leon Lederman did a nice send-up in his "The God Particle". I'm not sure if Stephen Hawking is serious or not when he goes on about God. I far prefer Feynman's attitude.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
GreyLake 0
Everything is questionable, and only by being as dogmatic as zealots can we believe that a thing is true just because it can generally be proven. (We can't say anything can always be proven. Man doesn't have the luxury of "always.")
Apparent facts, I agree, we'd be silly to doubt. But science doesn't end there. How is the universe able to organize itself so tidily? Some people call it god, others call it science. I truly see little difference, depending on the function of the god.
Semantics are everything, anyway.
And as for my drift: I'm not confusing things. I'm attempting to remind us of the fact that people--biased, insane, and so frequently mistaken--are precisely those who use science. People confuse science, just as people confuse "the word of god." You can call it misuse. But again, the human element here will always prevent the "perfect use" or application of science.
As for explanations in the physical realm: the entire physical realm is explainable by means of a creator, to religionists. But so long as scientists are unable to explain the reason for the existence of the entire physical realm, they will only have faith that science can explain it.
Apparent facts, I agree, we'd be silly to doubt. But science doesn't end there. How is the universe able to organize itself so tidily? Some people call it god, others call it science. I truly see little difference, depending on the function of the god.
Semantics are everything, anyway.
And as for my drift: I'm not confusing things. I'm attempting to remind us of the fact that people--biased, insane, and so frequently mistaken--are precisely those who use science. People confuse science, just as people confuse "the word of god." You can call it misuse. But again, the human element here will always prevent the "perfect use" or application of science.
As for explanations in the physical realm: the entire physical realm is explainable by means of a creator, to religionists. But so long as scientists are unable to explain the reason for the existence of the entire physical realm, they will only have faith that science can explain it.
Let's go to candy mountain.
billvon 3,099
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Science is fundamentally another faith, seems to me.
It's basically the opposite. Religious faith requires you to "take on faith" a great many things. Science is the opposite. If something is not repeatable or does not produce predictable results - it is discarded.
If, tomorrow, a document was found that altered our perceptions of who Jesus was, all the major christian religions would continue with the same beliefs they have had all along. (Perhaps a few new splinter groups might rise up.)
However - if, tomorrow, a scientists was able to prove that quarks do NOT have spin (and his experiments were repeatable) a large chunk of quantum physics would go sailing out the window.
>Granted, (as someone earlier noted), it's more readily revised. It
>seems unscientific to me for people to assume that we can only be
>confident in observable facts, considering that our ability to observe is
>limited by our human senses . . .
The fact that colors are made up of parts of the EM spectrum does not change even if a blind man is discussing it. Instruments merely extend the reach of our senses; they do not create the reality of what is being observed.
>And then we've also discovered that particles, just like animals in the
>wild, behave differently under observation than they behave
>unobserved. So much for finding truths in observations!
I think you misunderstand the Heisenberg principle. It was one of the most important results in quantum physics in decades, and does not diminish the "truth" inherent in such observations.
>Science is a faith.
No more so than, say, a turbine engine is a faith. You can play word games to define anything as a faith ("hey, you have faith it's going to work, right?") but that's more a semantic game than anything that has anything to do with reality.
>Neither science nor religion develop truths or facts; people do, and they
>do as they see fit.
If you attempt to use science to underpin your morality and search for personal "truth" you will fail as soundly as the guy who uses Genesis to try to figure out how the Grand Canyon came to be. On the other hand, if you try to use science to figure out how the world works, and religion to understand your place in it (and the importance of morality, the meaning of life etc) you'll be in good shape.
It's basically the opposite. Religious faith requires you to "take on faith" a great many things. Science is the opposite. If something is not repeatable or does not produce predictable results - it is discarded.
If, tomorrow, a document was found that altered our perceptions of who Jesus was, all the major christian religions would continue with the same beliefs they have had all along. (Perhaps a few new splinter groups might rise up.)
However - if, tomorrow, a scientists was able to prove that quarks do NOT have spin (and his experiments were repeatable) a large chunk of quantum physics would go sailing out the window.
>Granted, (as someone earlier noted), it's more readily revised. It
>seems unscientific to me for people to assume that we can only be
>confident in observable facts, considering that our ability to observe is
>limited by our human senses . . .
The fact that colors are made up of parts of the EM spectrum does not change even if a blind man is discussing it. Instruments merely extend the reach of our senses; they do not create the reality of what is being observed.
>And then we've also discovered that particles, just like animals in the
>wild, behave differently under observation than they behave
>unobserved. So much for finding truths in observations!
I think you misunderstand the Heisenberg principle. It was one of the most important results in quantum physics in decades, and does not diminish the "truth" inherent in such observations.
>Science is a faith.
No more so than, say, a turbine engine is a faith. You can play word games to define anything as a faith ("hey, you have faith it's going to work, right?") but that's more a semantic game than anything that has anything to do with reality.
>Neither science nor religion develop truths or facts; people do, and they
>do as they see fit.
If you attempt to use science to underpin your morality and search for personal "truth" you will fail as soundly as the guy who uses Genesis to try to figure out how the Grand Canyon came to be. On the other hand, if you try to use science to figure out how the world works, and religion to understand your place in it (and the importance of morality, the meaning of life etc) you'll be in good shape.
maadmax 0
If you attempt to use science to underpin your morality and search for personal "truth" you will fail as soundly as the guy who uses Genesis to try to figure out how the Grand Canyon came to be. On the other hand, if you try to use science to figure out how the world works, and religion to understand your place in it (and the importance of morality, the meaning of life etc) you'll be in good shape.
______________________________________________
Good summary! But until we know all, we still have to take many aspects of the physical universe on faith. Which is the same for spiritual discovery. We have to start with concepts based on faith and hopefully grow from there. Faith is only bad when it is applied blindly. When it is open to revision in both science or spirituality, it is a good place to start.
DZJ 0
Could you give examples of aspects we take on faith?
Quote
If something is not repeatable or does not produce predictable results - it is discarded.
Science is simple in definition. If the observations (i.e., something that's measured) aren't reproducible across the observers, then it doesn't count. The observers simply need to come up with the same value using the same words. In practice, it's very difficult. There's nothing faith based about it.
We are all engines of karma
maadmax 0
,
The thing that has been the most amazing to me is the absolute order and infinite consistency of the mater and energy that make up the universe. Sure it is easy to dismiss , as so many have, by saying well its always been that way or if it wasn't that way then we wouldn't be here to study it. Without an explanation for the order of the universe, how it got there and how it maintains itself as a part of the big picture, then this fact has to taken on faith. Uncovering its mysteries is of course science.
QuoteCould you give examples of aspects we take on faith?
The thing that has been the most amazing to me is the absolute order and infinite consistency of the mater and energy that make up the universe. Sure it is easy to dismiss , as so many have, by saying well its always been that way or if it wasn't that way then we wouldn't be here to study it. Without an explanation for the order of the universe, how it got there and how it maintains itself as a part of the big picture, then this fact has to taken on faith. Uncovering its mysteries is of course science.
Andy9o8 2
Quotewe still have to take many aspects of the physical universe on faith.
Incorrect. You're mis-using the word "faith". See above.
billvon 3,099
>we still have to take many aspects of the physical universe on faith.
No, we really, honestly don't. We don't take gravity "on faith." We don't know how it works, so we don't claim that we do and "you just have to have faith." We have a law that accurately describes it, and we have a lot of theories. But until one of them is proven through experimentation, it will not be valid.
No, we really, honestly don't. We don't take gravity "on faith." We don't know how it works, so we don't claim that we do and "you just have to have faith." We have a law that accurately describes it, and we have a lot of theories. But until one of them is proven through experimentation, it will not be valid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites