More on Faith and Science
by BradfordThe Irrationality of Science is a Viewpoint article which comments on the recent op ed piece by Paul Davies. A quote from the Davies article is followed by the author's response. My comments follow that.
Davies:
Science, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith….In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue.
Viewpoint author:
The last sentence is an irritatingly common misrepresentation of faith. Faith is not believing despite the lack of evidence, faith is believing despite the fact that the evidence falls short of proof. Anyway, Davies is going to argue that science, like religion, is ultimately based on faith:
One of the reasons Davies has been criticized is because he used a word- faith- the meaning of which has been distorted in order to caricature Christianity. The meaning of the word never meant belief without evidence. As the author pointed out faith was an extension of a belief based on evidence. Critics are reacting to a false understanding they helped to create in the first place. It is like one who lets a poisonous snake loose in a lab and comes back to complain when he is bitten by it.
There are real examples of extended beliefs based on evidence which are utilized in science. They include:
* A belief that the universe and the manner in which it functions can be comprehended by a species of limited intelligence through empirical methods (a necessary assumption).
* A belief that actual causal patterns, that explain the origin and subsequent development of both the universe and life on earth, can be traced to basic forces of nature from which are generated more complexly organized phenomenon.
* A belief that consciousness arose from chemical properties of matter contained by the organism having consciousness.
* A belief that chemical reactions of non-living matter led to a living cell.
* A belief that science is able to explain the origin of the universe and life on earth without recourse to any telic or intelligent causal components.
* A belief that no empirical data can be produced to support theories of intelligent design.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:55 am
Like most abstract words Faith can have a wide variety of shades of meaning. In the context of religion I have always understood that there were connotations of loyalty. Someone who loses their faith is letting the side down and will lose out on the benefits. To have doubts is a weakness and a bad thing.
While for a scientist to have doubts is integral to doing good science. Scientists may in practice have loyalty to their own assumptions (and it doesn't have to be anything as grand as the examples you give) but this is because they are human, not because they are scientists.
Comment by Mark Frank — November 30, 2007 @ 3:55 am
November 30th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Hi Mark. You wrote:
I wanted to show that the operational assumptions inherent to mainstream science are broader than what was indicated by Davies. The first is a necessary assumption while the remainder fall into the category of undemonstrable side beliefs. There may be applicable conditions where some are shown to be true but broadly speaking the beliefs extend beyond empirical support for them.
Comment by Bradford — November 30, 2007 @ 7:35 am
November 30th, 2007 at 11:15 am
The belief that our 5 senses gives us valid insight into the true structure of reality. If we were to come across some type of alien species, and we somehow found out that they were consciously aware beings and capable of abstract thought…. but we then found out that they only had three senses through which they were able to perceive the world around them; we'd certainly be justified in taking any of their findings regarding the actual structure of nature with great apprehension.
Or….
If we had discovered a species that was consciously aware, had all the same 5 senses, and only possessed the capability of reasoning via common sense. Again, we'd take any of their insight with great apprehension. Since from our perspective, the big findings from science tend to be counter-intuitive. Contrary to what would be the case if we only had common sense as our guiding light.
Comment by Doug — November 30, 2007 @ 11:15 am
November 30th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Perhaps there are alien species all around us or if not on our planet, then on Moon, Mars, Saturn or other planets and solar systems which we can't detect either with our 5 senses or with the measurement equipment we have in store. Absurd I know, but possible nevertheless
Comment by dimasok — November 30, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Beliefs are not required to do science. Empirical consistency is observed. Objectivity refers to the consistency of observation among different observers.
To accept scientific assertions as *meaningful* requires the axiom that our memories (the ability to make and retrieve a record) are reliable. But even this belief is optional as a prerequisite to actually applying the scientific method. Consider that a robotic intelligence can make observations, form generalizations, and confirm predictions, and yet have no beliefs whatsoever.
Your other statements can be cast as hypotheses which we may have a measure of confidence in depending on the available evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — November 30, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Good point….
We have to take it on faith that our 5 senses are providing us true insight into the structure of nature. Now I believe they do…. but it's still an article of faith.
1st, one has to believe that their senses are picking up enough information to give them the right to proclaim that "such and such means is the only way to understand the true structure of reality."
2nd, one has to believe that their perception of reality actually resembles reality. It's a large, unwarranted jump to assume that perception and reality are one in the same thing.
Comment by Doug — November 30, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Bradford:
Bradford I liked your list of assumptions. However, I would argue that assumptions 2-6 are more rooted in philosophical materialism or naturalism than they are empirical science. Indeed, I would argue, as I think you would, that these kinds of assumptions are not necessary at all to the advancement of science. My view of natural science is that it needs to be minimally metaphysical opposed to anti-metaphysical.
Empirical science does not deal well with large discontinuities. Indeed, to study natural causation requires some degree of continuity or a causal chain or nexus; where an unbroken chain of causation doesn't exist the history of science shows that human inference is a very powerful tool in bridging the gaps. However there are limits to this gap bridging. Problems like the origin of the universe, the origin of life and the origin of consciousness and mind (what I call the "big three") presently have too much discontinuity. The so called scientific explanations put forward by materialists are little more than "just-so stories". These kinds of explanations usually require not only several leaps of logic but a very generous leap of faith as well.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 30, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Here we go again.
Wrong. Yes they are. You believe that what you perceive can be equated with reality. You have no way of knowing this, no way of testing. You accept it as a matter of faith.
This does not get you around the fact that it is still you doing the perceiving. You trusting that those 5 senses are enough to give you an adequate lead into understanding the structure of reality.
Place one million antiquated audio recorders in a large room in attempt to capture all of the possible sounds heard. Listen to each audio recording. On that alone are you going to state, "only these sounds, that are captured on these tapes, are the only sounds that have happened in the room."
If, on a bet, you were going to spend the night in a cave. A cave that could be potentially crawling with venomous spiders and snakes etc, and out of concern for your well being you told your friend, "I'll only do it if I can have proof that there is nothing in there that will seriously harm me". Your friend replies, "I have a 1949 magnetic tape recorder. I'll place it in the cave and let it record for a few hours. We'll take it out, listen to it, and if we don't hear any slithering, hissing or large animal movements it's a go". You reply that you still do not feel comfortable with just that recording. To reassure you your friend states, "no problem…. I've got ten of these in my car… let's do it".
Doesn't matter. More observers using the same sensory apparatus. Still certainly not enough to declare that you (and others using the exact same tools you have) have now cracked the code and can be certain that your experiences do actually reflect reality.
Regardless of how many observers you add, you have no grounds for declaring that your perception of reality is actually how reality is structured.
Comment by Doug — November 30, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Zachriel:
Apparently belief #1 is a prerequisite. Inferences flowing from its negation do not look promising. 2-6 are not required to do science which is one reason they were noted. There is a general consensus about them despite their lack of necessity.
Comment by Bradford — November 30, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER:
Agreed. 2-6 are rooted in philosophical materialism. Recognizing bias is worthwhile.
Comment by Bradford — November 30, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
No, Doug. I don't.
Try to consider the robotic intelligence who can observe, generalize and predict. The robot has no philosophical predilections whatsoever. It's methodical.
The robotic intelligence makes generalizations about the world (which very well might be a virtual world). The *validity* of these generalizations is predicated on the reliability of memory. That is all that is required. It's true that the robot's memory may or may not be reliable. Perhaps someone, some nerdy dude, is tampering with its memory, in which case its empirical conclusions may not be valid.
But that is not the claim. The claim isn't that scientific methodology is reliable, but that it requires belief. It does not. Our robot can continue to apply its methodology whether it converges on consistent results or not, whether it makes sense or not, or whether it's forever Groundhog Day. That's what we mean by methodology.
Comment by Zachriel — November 30, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Can your robot interpret the results of the data? Propose explanations for the data? Suggest new experiments? Hell, can your robot come up with a plausible experiment, complete with justifications for performing it, on its own? And can it do all of the above without reference to faith or belief?
By all means, reduce science to nothing but experiments carried out and repeated with an estimation of result frequency, and cast everything else as unscientific. Then close your eyes and think real hard about what you've now rejected.
Comment by nullasalus — November 30, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I said:
You said:
Then what's the point of doing science? Tell me you're not serious.
I'm a realist, but I'm not a realist based on evidence - that would be impossible. I believe that what I perceive relates to reality.
And if you're so enamored with scientific methodology then so should you.
Comment by Doug — November 30, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
It is quite possible for robots to explore limited universes, form generalizations, extrapolate, propose varied hypothesis, and then test them.
The origin of a scientific hypothesis can be quite extraordinary. But again, that is not the claim I addressed.
Comment by Zachriel — November 30, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Within its realm, science is a very powerful tool. But I don't equate empirical observation with "reality". Not everything is amenable to scientific inquiry. And much of what we perceive has little to do with empirical observation.
I'm only enamored of clear understanding. If someone claims scientific support, that claim has a particular meaning.
We observe an apple fall to the ground. It doesn't require faith to agree to our common observation. If you want to quibble over whether that observation means that apples "really exist" or not, have at it. But the scientific method doesn't require "real existence" (as if the qualifier has meaning). It only requires the ability to make records of our observations.
Comment by Zachriel — November 30, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Last night I dreamed of Mandalay.
Comment by Zachriel — November 30, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
There's a lot of questions I could ask here - but I'll go with the most fun questions I can think of.
Can you show me the robot that does all this? Or, lacking that, the data that guarantees such a robot can be constructed and that it can 'do science' as good as or better than humans? And in the case of the former, can you provide this in a way that entails no belief on your part?
Einstein claimed part of his inspiration for developing his thoughts on space involved imagining himself travelling alongside a beam of light. Will your robot be programmed to be inspired?
Because you're trying to redefine science down to only include processes you're certain are algorithmic, in an attempt to argue that science doesn't rely on faith or belief. The problem is if you walk down that path - 'I can design a robot that never draws on belief or faith for what it does, and I call what it does science' - you're left with another problem. Namely, is the person (or even robot) who does science and is able to call on faith or belief capable of outperforming the robot?
This before realizing that Davies tackled science as is performed. Arguing that 'Okay, we've gotten this far using faith and belief, but hey, someday maybe there will be a robot that..' just proves his point.
Comment by nullasalus — November 30, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
I don't see how this adds further support to your contention.
I'm the one stating that something as fundamental as perception requires us to make a leap into the realm of faith.
The ground floor of any scientific enterprise, perception, already forces us to deviate from notions of meaningful knowledge solely coming from the empirical practices of scientific methodology.
You stated:
So, what if you had a recurrent dream in which you were falling through a bottomless void (repeated observations)….. and say that one of the themes of this recurrent dream was that the same spectators were watching you fall - dream after dream (multiple observers).
It requires faith for you to assume that your perceptions had any bearing on reality.
"But there were multiple observers"
Multiple observers using the exact same sensory equipment that you were using (you're all humans). You should have approximately the same reports. Eyes see for you as they see for them. Ears hear for you as they hear for them. All you have is a common perception.
Now, unless you are unwilling to state that you accept on faith that your perception is a close reflection of reality…. then you have really no reason to do science. Maybe to humor yourself. Maybe to awe yourself at the fact that others, using the same sensory set, have experiences and perceptions that appear to paralell yours (at least as you're lead to believe by your perceptions).
Comment by Doug — November 30, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Sorry Zach,
Not trying to flood you with responses - I left this out initially.
Quibble? If somehow it could be determined that science has no bearing whatsoever on reality, do you think people would continue to direct their efforts towards it?
The fact remains that most who are scientists are realists. You might want to brush aside the inconvenient fact that you accept your perceptions as being an accurate reflection of reality on faith. But that in no way removes the problem.
Comment by Doug — November 30, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Many types of artificial intelligence exploring complex landscapes could qualify.
Why would they have to be "better than humans" We're discussing whether belief is required to do use the scientific method "” at all. But within specific problem areas, artificial intelligence is capable of quite striking solutions.
I think you have lost track of the claim. If you have to have the inspiration of Einstein, then almost no one can do science. However, artificial intelligence can often solve problems in a manner humans would consider original and imaginative.
scientific method, principles and procedures
method, a procedure
algorithm, a procedure
Lots of people work in science without faith in the consistency of the universe. They might believe in miracles. They might believe the Apocalypse is imminent. They might just not care about arcane philosophical issues and work methodically. I'm certain that's how most scientists work. They like to figure things out. And they especially like to be surprised by some inconsistency with their expectations.
Comment by Zachriel — November 30, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Zach to nullasalus:
??? I went back and read the OP and did not see anything that suggested the subject is the scientific method. I read the linked article at Viewpoint too, and that's about "Laws" too. Precisely zip about methodology.
YOU introduced scientific method in this post this afternoon, as if that were the subject of this thread, but it's not.
Why is it that you guys can't play nice? This constant subject-changing and ridiculous follow-up pretense that your diversion *IS* the subject is getting very old. Eventually other contributors are going to get as sick of this game as I am. Do you have nothing more useful or meaningful to do with your time?
Comment by Joy — November 30, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
We're having enough trouble with the term "scientific method". The term "reality" is subject to conflation and is rarely defined in a useful way. What we can say is that people report many consistent observational experiences. Modern scholarship has derived a methodology to help refine these points of consistency and has developed an objective, albeit tentative and incomplete, model of the empirical world.
Not "should", but "do". In any case, humans have developed various ways to extend their natural senses which can be used to help refine and test their models of empirical phenomena. The world may have been created Last Thursday, but there is no data to support that claim.
Many scientists believe there is a material world that they can learn about.
Not at all. The persistence of phenomena between distinct observers leads to a reasonable inference that there is some consistent aspect of the world independent of the observer.
Consider science a self-contained system. It deals with empirical phenomena. It makes claims about empirical phenomena. It turns out that there are regularities within the data. That's it. You can take it or leave it.
Comment by Zachriel — November 30, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
December 1st, 2007 at 12:04 am
The title of the thread is "More on Faith and Science". The topic directly concerns the presuppositions of science.
Bradford makes the explicit claim that certain beliefs are "necessary". If he said they were common or perhaps even ubiquitous among scientists, I would not have objected. People are as people do. And scientists are generally people. They believe all sorts of things"”often contradictory things. How humans juggle these beliefs is a fascinating aspect of mind. The imagination allows great leaps in scientific understanding. But whatever muse the source, a valid hypothesis has to ultimately lead to specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.
Comment by Zachriel — December 1, 2007 @ 12:04 am
December 1st, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Zachriel,
That's nice. Again, could you show me the robot that does all this? I'm not interested in 'well, it's possible, and these AI kinda do something remotely similar'. Or maybe you could refer me to a peer-reviewed article supplied by a robot? I'd love to see that. Kind of a sci-fi fan here.
We're not, actually. More on that in a moment. But again, you slip away from answering the question.
Who said we had to be Einstein-level? I talked about inspiration, period. As for 'humans would consider' - that's nice. The entire AI enterprise to this point has been about fooling humans. Run the right script on an Aibo and you'll have people considering the robo-dog to be happy, or playful.
Science is not the scientific method.
Zach, you have an uncanny knack for replying to people's questions yet not answering. I wonder what your algorithm is designed to do, because 'replying honestly' sure ain't it.
Nevertheless, if all you're talking about is the scientific method, then the topic is boring. Science is not the scientific method - science employs the scientific method. I suppose 'science involves faith' is too spooky a claim for you to cope with, otherwise you'd actually address questions of why you disagree.
Comment by nullasalus — December 1, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
December 1st, 2007 at 11:03 pm
If you are really interested, try researching neural networks or cellular automata.
Define inspiration. Are you claiming that inspiration is required to do science?
The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat.
Are you claiming that proposing a hypothesis, making predictions, testing those predictions, then accordingly refining or discarding the hypothesis is not science?
We need to back up and make sure we are discussing the same issue and using the same terms. This is the claim at issue:
The claim is not that most scientists hold this belief, but that it is "necessary". But some scientists hold quite contrary views. This includes a number who think the universe is largely incomprehensible. Some who think that there are miracles that defy scientific explanations. And others who think that empirical methods are limited to only certain aspects of the universe. Yet they can still do good work in science because they subject their results to validation through the scientific method. This makes the claim false.
Artificial intelligence pervades all modern technology. I'm not sure why you would make this statement.
Comment by Zachriel — December 1, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
December 1st, 2007 at 11:15 pm
That human scientists may hold various beliefs is quite a different claim than that a particular belief is "necessary". Hypotheses may come from a variety of "spooky" sources (though most result from extensions of existing theoretical frameworks). But they are judged by their fit to the data. A good hypothesis leads to new questions. A great hypothesis leads to entire new areas of research.
It is Bradford's claim that puts limits on human inspiration. People can hold a variety of views, even contradictory views held by the same person, and these interactions can sometimes lead to remarkable leaps of scientific ingenuity.
Comment by Zachriel — December 1, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:37 am
Zachriel:
How's that? I pointed to six beliefs widely held in mainstream science today. I endorsed one of them and clearly believe others are restrictive. But I'm not the one doing the restricting.
Such leaps are more likely for those open to new ideas. Read 'The Design Matrix.'
Comment by Bradford — December 2, 2007 @ 12:37 am
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:50 am
Bradford: There are real examples of extended beliefs based on evidence which are utilized in science. They include:
* A belief that the universe and the manner in which it functions can be comprehended by a species of limited intelligence through empirical methods (a necessary assumption).
What scientists conduct research while assuming the endeavor either yields incomprehensible results or that the object of the research does not lend itself to empirical methodology? The very idea is absurd. Scientists can believe anything they wish while not conducting research but the six bullet points are focused on assumptions relevant to research. Some scientists, like others, believe in God and miracles. They simply do not employ the assumption that God will work miracles through their research. What were you thinking Zachriel?
Comment by Bradford — December 2, 2007 @ 12:50 am
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:17 am
In the course of his work a scientist must assume that he can subject a hypothesis to empirical evaluation. He also must assume he will have the capacity to comprehend the results. These are necessary operative assumptions.
Comment by Bradford — December 2, 2007 @ 1:17 am
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:56 am
Though "widely held", even pervasive, it is not, as you claimed, "necessary". You are confusing human motivation with the intrinsics of science. Not all entities require the same philosophical or emotion commitment.
Anyone who prays over an experiment, perhaps desperate to find a cure. Or an entity who ignores philosophical issues and just works methodically. Or certain Zen Buddhists who practice science without any mundane beliefs in the efficacy of science, or any presupposition concerning materialism whatsoever.
It is the hypothesis that allows the spark of inspiration.
A hypothesis can come from anywhere; vast experience in a field of study, deep thought, a dream, from fanciful thought-experiments, a Muse, a chance event, or even from playing cards. Most hypotheses come as natural extensions of existing theoretical frameworks. But to be considered scientifically valid, the hypothesis "” whatever the source "” must be verified by the scientific method.
Comment by Zachriel — December 2, 2007 @ 10:56 am
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:21 am
First, the only one of the six deemed necessary was the first bullet point. Second, assuming comprehensibility and empirical applicability are necessary. Those assumptions are not motivators. They are needed to make one's work accord with rational and empirical properties of scientific disciplines.
Praying over an experiment does not infer the one doing so operates under beliefs in incomprehensibility or inapplicability of empirical testing. If you believe that you are placing your own spin on this hypothetical.
Comment by Bradford — December 2, 2007 @ 11:21 am
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:38 am
Yes, that's the only point I have addressed.
And I pointed to counterexamples. Zen Buddhists who practice science without any mundane beliefs in the efficacy of science, or any presupposition concerning materialism whatsoever. They don't presume: They just do. Artificial intelligence investigating limited regions of empirical data. AI doesn't presume: It just does. And yes, scientists who pray for miracles in their work. That's because scientists are generally people. And people comprise many beliefs.
We could perhaps discuss why these non-scientific attitudes have not always impeded science. The answer is in the methodology.
Comment by Zachriel — December 2, 2007 @ 11:38 am
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:45 am
Cite one scientific paper as an example supporting your claim. I want to read the paper of the researcher(s) who disavows the applicability of the very approach that led to the results shown.
Comment by Bradford — December 2, 2007 @ 11:45 am
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 pm
That's incredibly funny. Why would a Zen Buddhist discuss philosophy in a scientific paper. Not only is it irrelevant to the science, but it's not even Zen.
Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes. "” Watts
Comment by Zachriel — December 2, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I'm not laughing at you, Bradford.
Since everything is but an apparition, having nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, one may well burst out in laughter. "” Longchenpa
Peace.
Comment by Zachriel — December 2, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Zachriel:
He could discuss it in an article extrinsic to the paper itself but if that is not even Zen then perhaps your claim cannot be supported with evidence even in principle.
Comment by Bradford — December 2, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Zach:
This is just a sampling of the meaningless things that Zachariel has been stringing together on this thread. Indeed, everything he has said up to this point has absolutely meaningless. Maybe that is his point. Existence is nothing more than a bad cosmic joke; but, then again, maybe not. Even bad jokes have some sort of meaning.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 3, 2007 @ 3:45 pm