Is faith necessary for science?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>faith
>belief
>truth
that's philosophy, not science
>I have faith that the data I am getting from an experiment is valid for my existence
>I believe that I and other scientist are uncovering the fundamental nature of the world
>My scientific truths are more valid than your philosophical and religious truths
>I have faith
>I believe
>uncovering the fundamental nature of the world
>truths
philosophy
Then what is science?
working inside the bounds of scientific method
"I believe there exists a transcendent all-powerful being in accordance with (insert desert book here), of which empirical evidence is in principle unavailable" is a much stronger assertion than what you need to do science.
>Is faith necessary for science?
sure. most of the placebo effect relies on faith.
Science is based on the empirical. Minus some degree of faith in our ability to experience, if you're doing science with faith you're probably doing it wrong.
>desert book
Name calling is fun.
>of which empirical evidence is in principle unavailable
No, you just can't get evidence at will. Just like in astronomy, you have to wait to see something happen.
I unironically believe that the moral foundations of christianism are necessary for science.
>christianism
You misspelled Catholicism.
That isn't faith retard. Data showing x or y takes no faith, neither foes collecting it.
Unless you see it the answer or results with your own eyes doesn't it require some faith to accept what others tell you is fact?
Example, have you ever seen what Jupiter looks like with your own eyes or just from photos that you are told are what Jupiter looks like?
Trust based on past experience - that is not faith. Faith is "trust" in the absence of prior experience and evidence.
Well you could argue that science requires the faith that science will remain constant and not change later (or earlier) in time.
Like imagine if tomorrow, the half-life of Carbon-14 changed to 7 days. It'd turn science on its head because if nothing is constant, then there's no way we can actually understand anything.
Science NEEDS to be unchanging, or there is no way to know anything about the universe before we started doing science and measuring the changes.
why?
Science is constantly changing, thats what makes it science. The observations will be the same, if the framework for understanding them changes, so be it.
>Science is constantly changing, thats what makes it science
I didn't know the speed of light ever wasn't 3E8 m/s
Sarcasm aside, I'm talking not about our understanding of science, which is open to change as knew things come to light. I'm talking about the axiom about the ability to reproduce an experiment and get the same result.
How can you be sure of past famous experiments if you don't verify it yourself? Scientists take things on "faith" all the time.
If we use science to determine that these constants (speed of light, planck, whatever) are indeed different than what we say currently how has science been turned on its head? Sure it would be a revolutionary change in our understanding, but it doesnt put the nature of science in jeopardy, and it certainly doesnt mean we're accepting things based off of faith. Its like youre implying we find we're wrong through some means other than scientific inquiry.
Ok but how do I know Jupiter is real if all I have to go on is what other people tell me?
Predictive models.
faith != religion
Because you have an understanding of human psychology, and for everyone of importance to be lying to you about Jupiter is extremely unlikely. Conspiracy theories are just innately unlikely.
I don't know if this is a coincidence or not but most math majors I know are Christian, yet most physics majors I met were atheists. Is this common?
No, it's detrimental to science.
Yes I understand that but the family that I have who believe such things also believe Satan is running the show and at that point anything is fair game. I know how irrational it is, but idk if I'm just that impressionable or because the fact that it's my own family saying it, but there is a part of me that thinks it could all be 100% true. And the only way I could write it off completely would be to see the answers with my own eyes.
I also don't know if I should feel ashamed for considering it, or a bit proud that I want some kind of tangible proof before I accept either option.
As soon as you posit a Cartesian Demon, a creature that is fucking with all of your perceptions to make the world look different, you're just a baby step away from solipsism.
en.wikipedia.org
It might be true. We might also be in The Matrix, aka brains in a vat.
en.wikipedia.org
Part of being a rational person is to start from the assumption that there is no such Evil Demon, because otherwise every act of rational inquiry is thwarted.
See also Last Thursdayism.
en.wikipedia.org
kek, heres a paraphrase
If I told you that I observed your water wasn't poisoned, would you drink it? Probably
If I told you I had faith your water wasn't poisoned, would you drink it? Probably not
A post-Aristotelian philosophical school.
for science, yes
for maths, no
>being this much of an ignoramus
The enlightenment has truly rot the brains of people.
>Science is constantly changing, thats what makes it science.
Nice truisms/buzzwords. (Pro-tip: no that's not what makes science science, moron.)
Following classical greek tradition (where we have inherited science from) science assumes the dogmatic fork in the Münchhausen trilemma.
Math is the ur-dogmatic model. See everything after Euclid.
Quite funny when Veeky Forums talks about shit they don't understand.
That honestly doesn't help my dilemma but I appreciate the thought & effort.
As I don't see how that relates to my dilemma in particular.
>it's another spook thread
Mods, do your job.
Nope, just some philosophical thinking and intuition.
>faith helps me know an octopus can shoot ink
>faith helps me know 2+2=4, etc
>faith helps me know these are human relatives.
>Following classical greek tradition (where we have inherited science from) science assumes the dogmatic fork in the Münchhausen trilemma.
So have practically all philosophers, up until 100 years ago. Foundationalism was just taken for granted. Even today, foundationalism has many adherents.
>I know nothing about epistemology
>I think epistemology is still a relevant field
Good to know you're a gullible imbecile who'd believe anything.
Only in the rational teachings of science and marxism. Religion really has no place beyond the most primitive despotic societies.
Wow, you sure convinced me with those personal insults. Maybe if you actually had studied espistemology you would realize that isn't a valid line of reasoning.
Religiosity is ingrained in your biology.
>I know nothing about epistemology
Yes, Faith/abduction is how hypotheses are formed
Faith is necessary for knowledge, so yes.
Reproducing an experiment doesn't produce the same result if relevant variables are different. If time is a relevant variable then this would be discovered by scientific experiments in which all other variables are held constant, or multiple experiments at the same time. The idea that science relies on time being a non-variable is simply false.
Evolution requires a lot of faith, more so than a belief in God.
>mathematical axioms are dogma
Ugh, you're an idiot.