Faith in Science

[Illyricum]

Can we really put are faith in science? Can we trust everything it says?

[otseng]

As for science, it's not even that it's necessary to have "faith" that science will provide an answer to life's material questions. It's that the structure of science is such that answers are inevitable. Faith is irrelevant.

That is a pretty strong stance that science will inevitably answer (all of) life's material questions. I don't see how such as stance can be proven. Yes, we are learning more about the material world each passing day. Yet, science just as well reveals more questions upon more discovery. So, I would maintain that such a position requires faith in science to come to that conclusion.

[perspective]

That is a pretty strong stance that science will inevitably answer (all of) life's material questions.

This is where the faith aspect of science comes in. Those who have a faith in science, have faith that all things in our world can eventually be explained by science. It cannot be proven, its just faith. It may be more supported by evidence than traditional faiths, but it still is faith. That's why I don't understand why some people claim science isn't a religion - it requires faith just like any other religion.

[ST88]

That is a pretty strong stance that science will inevitably answer (all of) life's material questions. I don't see how such as stance can be proven. Yes, we are learning more about the material world each passing day. Yet, science just as well reveals more questions upon more discovery. So, I would maintain that such a position requires faith in science to come to that conclusion.

I think you're confusing faith with expectation. Faith does not require empirical evidence. Surely you're not suggesting that there is no evidence that science will never be able to answer these questions. History is littered with such evidence.

These questions:

What exactly are the four forces?
What exactly is energy?
What exactly is matter?
What causes time?
What is life?
How exactly did life come about?
Who killed JFK?

are not theoretically out of science's reach. It is therefore reasonable to assume that there will be answers. For example, three-dimensional imaging applied to the Zapruder film gave some very compelling evidence for the single-shooter theory, and completely debunked the grassy knoll theory and the magic bullet theory.

The word "faith", as it is applied to religion, applied to science has no meaning. If you would like to say that "faith" is necessarily a state of mind in which we can expect certain things to happen in the future, then, sure, go ahead and say "faith". But do so knowing that these two words do not refer to the same concept.

[otseng]

I think you're confusing faith with expectation. Faith does not require empirical evidence. Surely you're not suggesting that there is no evidence that science will never be able to answer these questions. History is littered with such evidence.

However, there is also an element of uncertainty. It is uncertain if science will be able to explain all of nature.

These questions are not theoretically out of science's reach. It is therefore reasonable to assume that there will be answers.

I would say that it would be reasonable to state that science might eventually have the answers. However, there is no way to prove that science will find the answers.

For example, three-dimensional imaging applied to the Zapruder film gave some very compelling evidence for the single-shooter theory, and completely debunked the grassy knoll theory and the magic bullet theory.

There are theories, but there is not one conclusive answer, even with the JFK assassination (though I threw in the JFK assassination in the list of questions as a weak attempt at humor).

The word "faith", as it is applied to religion, applied to science has no meaning.

I would define faith as "a belief that does not have a proof". Only when there is a conclusive proof, then there is a certainty to the expected answer. But, if there is not a conclusive proof, then there is an element of uncertainty. That does not discount evidence or experiences. They can make an argument stronger, but they don't make something conclusive.

[ST88]

I think you're confusing faith with expectation. Faith does not require empirical evidence. Surely you're not suggesting that there is no evidence that science will never be able to answer these questions. History is littered with such evidence.

However, there is also an element of uncertainty. It is uncertain if science will be able to explain all of nature.

These questions are not theoretically out of science's reach. It is therefore reasonable to assume that there will be answers.

I would say that it would be reasonable to state that science might eventually have the answers. However, there is no way to prove that science will find the answers.

Naturally, there is uncertainty. The future is always uncertain -- there's no getting around that. But the type of uncertainty required by faith is the type that says you must accept that there could be absolutely no possibility of proof or even supporting evidence -- not just in your lifetime, but ever. This is what I can't accept. Science does not demand this kind of faith.

Even if you accept that science might find out these answers (as opposed to will), that there is the possibility that they will be found, you still have to say that the way science works does not preclude answers, as is true with religion. The proof required by religion is entirely emotional -- based not on observation, but on how you feel about it, i.e., "faith" -- because true evidence will always be elusive.

The word "faith", as it is applied to religion, applied to science has no meaning.

I would define faith as "a belief that does not have a proof". Only when there is a conclusive proof, then there is a certainty to the expected answer. But, if there is not a conclusive proof, then there is an element of uncertainty. That does not discount evidence or experiences. They can make an argument stronger, but they don't make something conclusive.

But this is exactly how science works. We know that there is no such thing as conclusive proof for a hypothesis, only supporting evidence. A hypothesis always covers a future action or effect. I hypothesize that a glass will break if I drop it onto a stone floor. Do I have conclusive proof that it will? Of course not. I only have supporting evidence. It will only be proved at the moment it breaks.

I would redefine faith as "certainty without the need for empirical evidence."