Is Science Just a Matter of Faith?

Hugh Pickens writes "Pastabagel writes that the actual scientific answers to the questions of the origins of the universe, the evolution of man, and the fundamental nature of the cosmos involve things like wave equations and quantum electrodynamics and molecular biology that very few non-scientists can ever hope to understand and that if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that we accept the incredibly complex scientific phenomena in physics, astronomy, and biology through the process of belief, not through reason. When Richard Fenyman wrote, 'I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics,' he was including himself which is disconcerting given how many books he wrote on that very subject. The fact is that it takes years of dedicated study before scientific truth in its truest, mathematical and symbolic forms can be understood. The rest of us rely on experts to explain it, someone who has seen and understood the truth and can dumb it down for us in a language we can understand. And therein lies the big problem for science and scientists. For most people, science is really a matter of trusting the expert who tells it to us and believing what they tell us. Trust and belief. Faith. Not understanding. How can we understand science, if we can't understand the language of science? 'We don't learn science by doing science, we learn science by reading and memorizing. The same way we learn history. Do you really know what an atom is, or that a Higgs boson is a rather important thing, or did you simply accept they were what someone told you they were?'"

Comments

No.

[grub]

Science is demonstrable, repeatable and self-correcting. Most importantly: Science Delivers. Not understanding the intricacies doesn't make it "faith".

Faith is an idea with no evidence to back it up no matter how adept the 'experts'. Even more important, the 'experts' often don't agree on even the basics. Witness all the various religions and factions thereof.

Re:No.

[jedidiah]

Quite often certain people attempt to conflate trust and faith as if they are the same thing.

Trust is earned and subject to revision. Faith is not. Faith is expected without justification and is expected to endure regardless of what facts may come to challenge it.

Re:No.

[Missing.Matter]

Yes, yes, yes and no.

If I want, I can educate myself enough to perform the necessary steps to produce quantum entanglement. I can verify the experiments on my own, given enough knowledge and funding. On issue of dark matter, I absolutely can measure the rotational speed of galaxies and perform the necessary calculations to arrive at the conclusion that there isn't enough matter in the galaxy (this calculation is easily done with readily available data, but I can produce my own given the right observatory).

As for the angel, no. No matter how much education, equipment, or experiments I cannot reproduce an angel sighting. This is the critical difference between religion and science.

Re:No.

[Zeek40]

It really is a sad testament to the state of education in this country that so many people have such difficulty understanding the basics foundation of the scientific method.

"Is your hypothesis testable?" If the answer is "yes", it's science, if the answer is "no", it's religion.

Re:No.

[MozeeToby]

Take 1000 people and leave them on a deserted planet somewhere with stone age technology. Assuming their decedents look at the stars at all they'll eventually come up with Newtons laws. If they come up with some clever experiments regarding the speed of light they'll even come up with relativity. They'll call it something else, and the equations might look different, but they will be mathematically identical. They'll come to understand genetics, metabolic pathways, antimatter, nuclear physics, logic, mathematics, etc. etc. etc. They won't discover them in the same order we did, they might even miss a few that we found and find a few that we missed. They'll certainly go down dead end paths that we never did (and of course, avoid some of the paths that we mistakenly went down) but there will be an inevitable convergence toward a body of knowledge that correctly describes the universe (do note how I said toward, it will never be verifiable perfect obviously).

Now, put the same thousand people on a deserted planet and watch their religions change over time. Do you honestly believe that they'll 'converge' to the wildly divergent religions present in the world today? Hell, I'll even let you throw a copy of each major holy book (or the book of your choice) into the mix. Do you really believe that they'll come up with the exact same interpretation and understanding of those holy books that the majority of our world follows?

Re:No.

[Alain Williams]

You could study for a decade or two ...

The point is that you can, in principle, do it. The chances are that you know people who have done it -- in some scientific field or another.

Can you do that with religion (ie a faith) ? No -- that is the difference.

Re:No.

[wealthychef]

Then test and reproduce the big bang for me. Evolve a field mouse to an elephant. Recreate the moon. Make a star from scratch, complete with planets. Create matter from raw energy. Show me the curvature of space/time and recreate it in a lab. Prove that a space traveler does not age when traveling at the speed of light...

This is more evidence of what is wrong with our science education. People just don't get it. "Recreate the moon"? WTF? How about "propose a hypothesis which is consistent with the existence of the moon and all other observed phenomena in the universe, which forwards our understanding of how the moon might have formed, and which makes testable predictions so it can be falsified?" "Evolve a field mouse to an elephant?" My god, we Americans are idiots. I'm embarrassed. How about "Get an education, you retard?" Sorry, but I've had it with the ignorant arrogance of American fundamentalist whackos who slow down human progress in the name of ancient superstitions.

Re:No.

[Korin43]

As must Darwinian evolution. While we can test and prove micro-evolution (adaptation and such), the same cannot be said for macro (one species to another). It is interesting how measuring rods are both dually convenient and inconvenient at the same time depending upon our preferences for what's being measure.

Macro vs micro evolution is a distinction made for convenience, not to represent any special difference between the two. Macro and micro evolution are the same thing on different time scales, and if one works, the other has to. That's the great thing about science -- using small things that we can observe to understand big things that we can't.

Your argument makes as much sense as saying that since we will probably never be able to watch a planet form up-close, we'll never understand how planet formation works. Who cares if we understand the basics (gravity, thermodynamics, radioactive decay, conservation of momentum), we haven't actually seen it so despite what we know, it must be magic.

Re:No.

[imgod2u]

Of course, if that's your definition of "faith", what you're talking about here is the same as faith of existentialism. If you want to really expand faith to that level, the everything except self-existence is a leap of faith. And in that respect, there's no difference between me believing that I'm typing on an actual computer -- interacting with physical matter -- rather than just dreaming all of this.

Do I commit absolute certainty to the fact that others exist in the world? What about history? Do I believe that historical documents describing the actions of Einstein is true? Do I believe that mathematics is consistent and axiomatic? Do I believe that the logic and reason my brain is capable of in any way corresponds with the workings of the universe? Do I believe that any empirical observations made by anyone ever isn't just the result of some invisible, intangible flying spaghetti monster mucking with the results?

We've decided to narrow down the definition of faith with respect to religion to not encompass such a broad topic. Simply: religious faith is narrowed down to absolute certainty of the teachings of some organized scripture.

Said organized scripture may even have scientific or archeological evidence associated with it. But the definition of faith is that, regardless of whether or not anyone can produce any observable, repeatable evidence, one accepts something as truth. And in that respect, science is never like that because every theory comes with the caveat: "this is simply what is consistent with recorded observations". Science relies on faith in the general case the same way that your belief that the reality you observe is real relies on faith in the general case.

Re:No.

[Shining Celebi]

"Is your hypothesis testable?" If the answer is "yes", it's science, if the answer is "no", it's religion.

You're missing the entire point of the article. The problem is in practice the average person is entirely incapable of testing many scientific hypotheses, let alone understanding the reasoning behind them and their ramifications. Yes, in theory, if I spent 7 years getting a doctorate in physics, I could be seeing and understanding actual evidence. Otherwise, I'm just taking everything on faith. It does me no good if a hypothesis is testable in theory. Priests can just as well tell me that they're able to replicate miracles all the time for all the difference it makes to me.

Re:No.

[elrous0]

The problem is that the results from tests in real-world science are often far from conclusive. There is debate about the results. Sometimes consensus can be reached, but sometimes the debate fractures into competing theories. That doesn't make it a "religion" but it does make it a lot less "hard" than many scientists contend (since it introduces human interpretation into the mix).

"Is your hypothesis testable?" doesn't always have a simple "yes" or "no" answer. Sometimes the answer is "Well...sorta."

Re:No.

[chill]

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

Macroevolution has been demonstrated. The main problems with some people accepting it is both the squishy definition of "species" and the fact that anything significant in the animal kingdom would occur over thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years.

To get something "quickly", scientists need to use species that have super short lifespans, such as fruit flies or bacteria. Even then it takes many decades and most of the "God did it" crowd want to see it by next Thursday at the latest.

Obvious?

[Shadow Wrought]

I've always thought it rather obvious that Science is a Faith. If a word cannot be used to define itself, than how can Science ever be used to prove itself?

Even if both Science and Religion have their roots in Faith, however, their differences are staggering. Religion is only about Faith. There is nothing more to it than belief, and not only is there no way to systematically test what is taught, but it is discouraged as indicative of too little Faith.

Science is all about that very exploration. Challenging what is taught and verifying for yourself that it is true. It may, fundamentally, be a Faith, but then again, isn't our acceptance of our sensory inputs a Faith as well?

Re:Obvious?

[Danse]

I've always thought it rather obvious that Science is a Faith. If a word cannot be used to define itself, than how can Science ever be used to prove itself?

Science doesn't "prove" anything, at least in the sense you seem to be using the word. It does allow us to find the most evident answer to our questions though. We've see science succeed in all sorts of endeavors. We've put men on the moon, we've built incredible structures, we've created the very computers and networks that we're communicating with now. We've created medical procedures and devices that have allowed us to extend both our lifespan and quality of life significantly. I've got a phone in my pocket that can do more than most PCs did 10 years ago.

The results of the scientific method can be seen throughout our society, so we have vast amounts of evidence to support its efficacy. While many people may take the pronouncements of science on faith, there is no need to do so, as there is with religion. You actually can do the research and test the claims yourself. Those people that understand the methods of science know why they accept the answers that we get through science. They also know why those answers are subject to change. They also know there are some questions that may never be answered.

Science is all about accumulating and building upon knowledge. No theory is ever completely proven or ever finished. They're all subject to change pending new information. Some people have a hard time with that concept. Some people seem to have more of a need to have a simple explanation for everything, and what could be more simple than "God did it"?

Science does require faith

[ab8ten]

But it also requires doubt.

That's what makes it special.

Re:Science does require faith

[TheRaven64]

Science does not require faith, because science does not claim to tell you the truth. Truth is the realm of philosophers. Scientists offer something far less reified than theories that are true: they offer you theories that are useful. Science doesn't ask you to believe in its theories, it simply says that a theory can be used to give useful predictions. If these predictions happen to be correct, then that's great. If they don't, then the theory is due for revision or replacement - science as a whole has nothing invested in the accuracy of any given theory (other than the egos of specific scientists).

Some scientific theories are known to be wrong, such as Newton's laws of motion. In spite of being wrong, they are still useful because, for common problems, the errors in the theories are significantly less than the errors from measurement.

Absolutely not

[GreyyGuy]

Science is fundamentally different from faith in that science is reproducible. Faith is not.

What this question asks is if you are too lazy to learn the details yourself then you have to have faith in the person telling you about it. Which is exactly the same as most people who can't be bothered to learn the details of their own religion and its history, and instead just take on faith that the person telling them what god wants them to do is actually the truth of it. But that similarity is that people not wanting to learn themselves are putting faith in a person of trust.

Big difference

[putaro]

The big difference is that when someone says they see a miracle, all they can offer is "Because I said so."

You may have to do a lot of studying and it may not be possible for you to learn enough to verify some things or the equipment is too expensive/difficult but it's at least theoretically possible.

Anyone with a high school education should be able to do things like verify Newton's laws for themselves. You don't have to take it on faith. Many things we do take on trust, but that is different than taking something on faith. Taking something on trust means that you have the option of verifying it yourself. Taking something on faith means that you simply believe and you have no option of ever verifying it yourself.

Re:Big difference

[Lord_Jeremy]

I think the point of the article is that it's the larger, more distant explorations of science that are a matter of faith. I don't think you would find many people who disagree with the existence of gravity as a point of religion. The difference is they would probably tell that God created the laws of gravity and physics, as opposed to a theoretical physicist who said that the laws of physics are a result of X, Y, and Z occurrence at the creation of the Universe. Neither of those are provable in a way that you could understand. It's the way that the physicist (hopefully) reached his conclusion that makes it more believable to you or I. We may not understand more than a fraction of the mathematical proofs and models that are used to describe something like the creation of the universe, but we understand that all of that math is built upon core concepts we can prove to ourselves. That makes a lot more sense to me than accepting Jesus as the son of an omnipotent god that created the world in seven days six thousand years ago.

Re:Big difference

[GooberToo]

The big difference is that when someone says they see a miracle, all they can offer is "Because I said so."

You really have no idea you just said a really, really funny joke.

When basic algebra is used with most people, their eyes glaze over. Which means, for the majority of the world's population, if it wasn't taught in eighth grade, they believe you, "because I said so."

Look, they are not saying science has less merit or that its merits are strictly that of faith. What they are saying is, by the time it trickles down to the layman, they only acknowledgement is strictly ONLY, "because I said so", from an authoritative source. Given that many people consider churches and/or religions to be an authoritative source , in the layman's eyes, its a difference without distinction. After all, in both cases, its completely a leap of faith.

EASY!!!! Science *CAN* produce miracles!

[PeterM from Berkeley]

I mean, if you're gonna believe in something, WHY NOT believe in the thing that makes cars, go, planes fly, drugs work, farms more productive, computers work, metals strong, i.e., EVERY BIT OF OUR TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY?

I mean, if you're going to believe in something, WHY NOT believe in the thing that slaps you in the face with literally thousands of miracles a day? Oh, and yes, it's true that they stop being miracles if you bother learning how they work and understand it, and all the miracle performers (scientists and engineers) TELL you that.

*NOT* to believe in science would require an incredible denial of reality. I mean, you'd have to be pretty much insane.

Science == miracles on demand. *SHOW ME* anything else so worthy of my faith. SERIOUSLY.

--PeterM

Not quite the same

[sandytaru]

Religious scholars argue vehemently over the interpretations of ancient texts (often haggling over ink blots that could change the meaning of words and translations) and then write books or long essays trying to prove their viewpoints. There is no evidence, no data, only opinion. Scientists argue vehemently over the interpretation of data and then do additional testing to prove their viewpoints. Because of the mentalities (and sometimes egos) of scientists, if someone is clearly wrong about their interpretation of the data, there will be a dogpile of experiments and work from other scientists to prove just how wrong they are.

The Wakefield vaccine study is an example of this: He faked data, made a controversial claim from the results of the faked data, and other medical researchers have proven time and time again that he was wrong. His followers, the anti-vaxxers, are relying on faith when they continue to believe in him even after he was proven to be a fraudster and a liar. However, scientists and interested parties who kept up with the research and came down on Wakefield for his lies are NOT relying on faith. They are relying on evidence. And that is why it is science and not a religion.

By that criteria?

[mibe]

In that sense, what ISN'T a matter of faith? How do you know that Columbus sailed to America? I've read about it in a book, but have you ever met anyone who was actually on that boat? And if so, how do you know they weren't lying? You're just putting your faith in a bunch of books, just like in religion right? And in science, if you didn't personally conduct quantum mechanics research, how can you make any conclusions about anything without faith? Of course, you may have realized my point by now, which is that saying "X requires faith, and religion requires faith, thus X is no different from religion" is dumb.

Re:Heretics are burned; So Are AGW "Deniers"

[jedidiah]

You want to conflate being burned at the stake with a little social discomfort?

Really. This is precisely the sort of conflation nonsense I am talking about.

This is precisely the stupid sort of crap that leads to the modern notion of false-martyrdom by American religious fundementalists.

Understanding should increase astonishment

[sjbe]

Oh, and yes, it's true that they stop being miracles if you bother learning how they work and understand it, and all the miracle performers (scientists and engineers) TELL you that.

I have a degree in engineering and I have studied rather a lot of physics. I understand rather well the concepts of how an airplane flies, how a supertanker floats, and how a transistor works. If you fail to be astonished at those things, I'm not really sure you understand them. I'm MORE impressed the more I understand them, not less. A 747 flying overhead is a damn miracle no matter how jaded you might be.

Obligatory XKCD

That is really what it comes down to

[Sycraft-fu]

We trust science because it works. In particular if you learn more about it, you trust certain parts more than others because they are more proven, they've worked more.

I have a lot of trust in what is known about organic chemistry, even though I've never studied it myself. The reason is I've seen what it has delivered, I've seen it stand up to lots of falsification attempts. That tells me it is something worth trusting. Doesn't mean I believe it to be without error in every way, but in general I trust that it is right, though I do not have much knowledge of it personally.

Now string theory I don't trust hardly at all. While it sounds like it is all nice and internally consistent, there's been no demonstration of it, and indeed no testable predictions (meaning it is really a hypothesis, not a theory). As such I don't trust that it is right. I am not dismissing it as wrong, just not trusting it yet.

That is, as you point out, rather different than blindly having faith in something, saying "I believe this is absolutely right, even though I've no evidence."

Same sort of thing with interpersonal relationships. If my dad says he'll do something, I trust he will. I don't have faith, I have trust. The reason is he's demonstrated that trustworthiness in the past. No, I can't predict his future behaviour with certainty, but it isn't a blind faith thing. I've good reason to trust him.

Very misleading

[gambino21]

We don't learn science by doing science, we learn science by reading and memorizing. The same way we learn history.

I think these statement are false. You don't learn "science" by reading an memorizing facts, you learn science by practising the scientific method. Didn't the author have any "lab" classes growing up? Unfortunately, the problem is that many teachers don't seem to understand the scientific method very well, and therefore focus on the learning facts part instead of the important part which is the method.
This is quite different from learning history, and I'd add that maybe this author has never heard of archaeology? Which is basically using scientific methods to make theories about history?

On the comments.

[Toze]

Faith gave us jihad, crusade, and inquisition. Science gave us mustard gas, involuntary sterilization, and nuclear weapons. Faith gave us international charities that feed starving children. Science gave us clean water.

Gregor Mendel was a Christian monk. Muhammed ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi was a devout Muslim. Oppenheimer did not think of the Bhagavad Gita by accident.

My point is, it's incorrect to characterize people involved in a community, or publicly claiming adherence to a certain way of thinking or doing things, as stupid, or evil, or blind. It's incorrect to characterize a way of doing or thinking as universally good or evil- it blinds you to the evil or good that exists in it. If your reaction to the above paragraph is to explain how these men advanced science in spite of having faith, then are you not interpreting the evidence to suit your assumptions? They were scientists. They had faith, and not inconsequential faith, in things many posters here evidently hate with a burning passion. Accept reality; for these men, at least, faith and science were not mutually exclusive, not demiurgic oppositional forces, but simply two ways. That doesn't mean you have to do the same, but maybe it means that you shouldn't dismiss faith as "magical thinking" that can't exist in the same mind as critical observation.

/me dons an abestos suit and waits for a response