Science and Belief

[Womble]

Given some comments on another thread on one of the other boards here i thought i'd get this one going so we can discuss this. I'm also going to lump in the fact that some people have suggested that there is also room in science for metaphysical discussions and the like. Before i start i'd just like to remind everyone that in reaility theres no way i can dictate who will, or will not post; and also take into account the fact that forum is for not only discussing things but also debunking things, so please expect to have lax arguements picked apart much like the Master went through his food in the double part story that saw David Tennants incarnation of the Dr regenerate into Matt Smiths.

So, is there belief in science? No, scientists may have beliefs but those are put to one side while the buisness of science takes place. Now, fine, not everyone thats a scientist is capable of doing this, but some are better than others, and the best scientists do this very well.

So do metaphysical debates/discussions have any place in science? No, again it's something scientists might do, probably when drunk at a party and they've gathered in the kitchen (the end destination for all truely great parties). But again it's not something science touches, the closest it would get is when scientists start playing about with the 'what ifs' as they're working on whatever their pet projects are. These what ifs allow the creative and intuitive leaps that help scientists drive knowledge forward, and of course the balancing act to any fluffyness creeping is the mauling that anything substandard would get through the peer review process.

Now there may or may not be more to this that i could say but i don't want to have a mega wordy opening post and i'm curious to see what the opinions are going to be and to guage who is making informed comments vs those that are making uninformed comments. Now my pretties, have at it as a pride of particularly hungry lions would is we air dropped in a few well fed pigs into their vacinity!! Only thing i will say is that if your not sure what someones said is just ask, makes everything so much easier!!

 

[Andiferous]

So do metaphysical debates/discussions have any place in science? No, again it's something scientists might do, probably when drunk at a party and they've gathered in the kitchen (the end destination for all truely great parties). But again it's not something science touches, the closest it would get is when scientists start playing about with the 'what ifs' as they're working on whatever their pet projects are. These what ifs allow the creative and intuitive leaps that help scientists drive knowledge forward, and of course the balancing act to any fluffyness creeping is the mauling that anything substandard would get through the peer review process.

I'd argue that proper science addresses issues that can be reasonably measured or proven in some real way, either through experiment or through mathematics, but I think scientists also crossover into philosophy by asking the "what ifs" (and I agree that that sort of curiosity and non-linear thinking is important to scientific breakthroughs). So no; I wouldn't call philosophy science, or science philosophy, but I think they often go hand-in-hand.

 

[e2iPi]

So, is there belief in science?

I am inclined to disagree, but first let's define our terms. If your definition of belief encompasses unprovable and unfalsifiable--what would typically be referred to as "faith," then I concur, there is no belief in science. However, if by belief you refer to reasonable assumptions about the nature of the universe (or some sub-domain thereof) then yes, belief is absolutely a part of science. For example, a common "belief" is that relativistic physics takes place in a smooth continuum of space-time. This may one day prove to be false, and adjustments will have to be made, but for now it serves our purposes for most experimental physics.

So do metaphysical debates/discussions have any place in science?

Ever talk to string theorists? Yes, they are serious. :shock:

Seriously, though, you would be surprised at what can make it into a peer-reviewed journal, especially in theoretical physics--the more experimental disciplines enjoy a bit more insulation for complete nut-jobbery. :lol:

-1

 

[Aerosteon]

Remember we could all be living in the Matrix and not know it. We've got to have faith that the reality we perceive is really real since we have no test to prove its not all a big computer simulation or dream.

We've also got to have faith that there is a naturalistic explanation for everything in the universe. I don't think we can prove everything has a naturalistic explanation until we find a naturalistic explanation for everything, and we haven't done that quite yet.

 

[Doc.]

I wouldn't call philosophy science, or science philosophy, but I think they often go hand-in-hand.

depends what you mean by philosophy, blunder and mystical bullshit or the source of healthy thoughts and ideas. philosophy by definition is the love of wisdom, if some people think that for instance dualism is philosophy at all, they are mistaken.

 

[Womble]

So, is there belief in science?

I am inclined to disagree, but first let's define our terms. If your definition of belief encompasses unprovable and unfalsifiable--what would typically be referred to as "faith," then I concur, there is no belief in science. However, if by belief you refer to reasonable assumptions about the nature of the universe (or some sub-domain thereof) then yes, belief is absolutely a part of science. For example, a common "belief" is that relativistic physics takes place in a smooth continuum of space-time. This may one day prove to be false, and adjustments will have to be made, but for now it serves our purposes for most experimental physics.

Hmmmm.........i would personally put that down as making the assumption based on what we know of our area, the assumption being that space-time is homogenous.

So do metaphysical debates/discussions have any place in science?

Ever talk to string theorists? Yes, they are serious. :shock:

Seriously, though, you would be surprised at what can make it into a peer-reviewed journal, especially in theoretical physics--the more experimental disciplines enjoy a bit more insulation for complete nut-jobbery. :lol:

-1

Ahhh.......my subject is geology, so we're fairly nut-job free. Oddly as well, given the fact we've had some fairly recent major breakthroughs in this branch of science, sometimes the more accurate model comes over as nut-jobbery at first.

 

[Womble]

On the topic of science and philosophy theres the work of Kuhn and Popper (i think some of its since been thrown out/debunked) on the philosophy of science. Kuhn was a propenent of the idea that science generally went along as normal with the theories explaining the evidence (normal science) and that eventually there'd be stuff that couldn't be explained and so there was a bit of a crisis, then paradigm shift would take place and with the new framework normal science would continue.

 

[Andiferous]

I wouldn't call philosophy science, or science philosophy, but I think they often go hand-in-hand.

depends what you mean by philosophy, blunder and mystical bullshit or the source of healthy thoughts and ideas. philosophy by definition is the love of wisdom, if some people think that for instance dualism is philosophy at all, they are mistaken.

True enough. I was on about the philosophy part.

I think there's necessarily some belief (or at least question) in science because every principle or study is begun by a hypothesis (an unproven kind of truth). Results are challenged by other scientists and independent testing. In medicine, for instance, one study isn't enough for conclusive results. That is just the nature of science, though, because there will always be a margin of error.

Metaphysical belief is another kind of approach entirely, and requires faith (which by definition) doesn't use a margin of error or require real proofs, but seeks to arrive an an absolute kind of truth. Metaphysical principles also can't be universally tested in any sort of predictable way. Conflicting ways of thinking, I think...

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

But when Metaphysics is being talked about in a serious tone that is in a forum labeled "Skepticism" and then in a subforum labeled "Pseudoscience" where the tone is clearly inclined that it's about crazy people discussing their madness, but implying they have no proof whatsoever (thus the catagorization of the thread) then it should not be attacked and derailed as if it was a scientific post.

It's the same concept that would be as if I made a thread about Paradoxal statements and someone chimed in "Well paradoxes *blah blah blah*" and derailed the topic from the discussion and trading of Paradoxal statements, it would usually be considered poor manners. Open forum or not - if someone's being a prick and that ruins the entire thread's point, then it should not be said within that space.
It is said that there's a time and place for everything - this isn't 4chan, and the time and place for many things doesn't always have to be "HERE AND NOW LETZ GO FAGGUTZ" ordeal as many make it out to be. For example, this thread is doing perfectly fine without being in the thread where this originated - indeed, a prime example of what I'm talking about. This post, however, can be considered what was going along in my thread, and that I'm doing it to prove a point: it's not so fun when it happens to you.

 

[Aught3]

Metaphysics is a big topic which covers a lot of questions. Not only things like 'does a god exist' but also 'what does it mean to exist' and 'what is the nature of reality'. It also covers cosmology which is the study of the totality of existence. Just because you take the view of a metaphysical naturalist, doesn't mean to don't have a metaphysical position. The only reason we see science as totally separate from metaphysics is that is was split off as the new way for discovering knowledge was created. Science still tries to answer many of the same questions that were considered part of metaphysics at one time.

The word you might have been looking for was supernatural. If that's the case then I would say that science has nothing at all to do with the supernatural, except for the possibility of investigating the effects of the supernatural on the natural world.

 

[Womble]

<tantrum with toys being thrown>

You know, i found that little outburst highly entertaining. You might not have liked the direction my post took the thread in, but it would have been up to you to coax it back. Personally i don't mind if the direction of this thread drifts in a natural way, i also claim no ownership of this thread as it's an open discussion that i thought would be interesting to have.

The post you made wasn't anything like what went on in 'your' thread, that was people responding to points and the topic drifting. Your post is somewhat akin to the praverbial pigeon that interupts a game of chess. Very grown up of you.

But anyway, metaphysics has been mentioned so i'm not going to have a hissyfit or anything, i'll just roll with it

Metaphysics was mentioned eariler anyway. I think the key thing we have to bear in mind is that metaphysics, whilst interesting, can just really mess around with science. However theres the discussions relating to all the string theory stuff which does blur the boundary between science and this sort of thing, personally i think it's more a case of going into some major what if senarios. However i do know that for myself when i get to talking about it because i'm not that clued up as a physist then it probably is a metaphysical discussion. Or i could just be rambling a bit here with the aim of getting the thread closer to the topic again.

 

[Andiferous]

Perhaps the parameters for "metaphysics" should be defined? I'm so confused.

I'm inclined to say that metaphysics (philosophy) is very different from metaphysics (belief system); one asks questions that are never really answered, and the other depends on faith to provide answers. (I haven't read most of the other thread - I suppose I ought to do that now... ) Anyway, I see nothing wrong with asking questions and posing hypotheticals in science.

 

[borrofburi]

Please define "belief".

 

[Andiferous]

I'm a bit confused myself, so just trying to clarify...

Metaphysical belief a sort of faith system from which one perceives scientific study?

The other metaphysical (questioning) I'd lump with philosophy, which tends to be friendly with both.

 

[e2iPi]

Ahhh.......my subject is geology, so we're fairly nut-job free.

There is that expanding earth guy :lol:

Oddly as well, given the fact we've had some fairly recent major breakthroughs in this branch of science, sometimes the more accurate model comes over as nut-jobbery at first.

I'd be interested in hearing more about that. I've always found geology fascnating but have never undertaken any type of survey.

Please define "belief".

How about this:

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

Based on this, we can reasonably say that there are a multitude of beliefs within science. Some of these are even very strongly held--the biologist who believes in relativity even though the derivation of the actual theory may be quite beyond his area of expertise. But in the spirit of the OP, we must then ask about faith.

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.

Again, we must admit that there many points of faith within the realm of science. Paramount among them would be faith in the scientific method and the peer-review process. Yes, they have proven themselves many times over but as my broker is fond of saying "past performance is no guarantee of future results." So every time I read of a new finding I am taking it on faith that the article has been properly vetted by the appropriate experts, until the evidence shows otherwise. Again, this is distinct from delusion, which has three main psychological criteria.

certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

So finally we reach a no, there are no delusions in science, although there may be delusional scientists (I'm looking at YOU, string theorists. :shock: ) Within science, nothing is held with absolute certainty, no theory is so enshrined that evidence cannot remove it from even the highest of ivory towers and although implausible ideas sometimes prove themselves, they have a uphill battle. To quote Sagan "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

Are these definitions acceptable to all parties involved? I ask rather than assert in order to prevent the fall into pedantic semantic bickering which is all too common on the internet in general; not to say that would ever happen here. :shock:

 

[Andiferous]

Ideally, science continually questions itself and in doing so makes improvements and learns from the process. Some amount of guessing is involved, technically, and science is practiced by people who have their own quirks and biases of perception, including an occasional propensity to be overconfident with science. But science ideally only ever improves on itself, and nothing can improve if it already thinks itself faultless, or so the principle goes. So if you've got a truth there can be no improvements, which is not the nature of science.

By contrast, when you think found the entire, indisputable truth, you've no need to question it any longer. Anything that proports to provide truths will never learn anything, because the truth is absolute and cannot be improved upon. Why bother? If questions move science forward, and science cannot progress and learn from itself if it thinks it has found the one true answer (attaching us to something akin to the flat earth theory), it too will become stationary and its truths supported by faith. Hypothesis is integral to science; having already found truth there's really no need for questioning. Meanwhile, uncertainty is less of an issue in religion and various belief structures that also try to explain things but leave room for uncertainty while claiming "truths". Faith holds them together because they have no need or desire to improve on themselves. You can't improve on truth.

Scientific truths might be as true as they can get; and scientific belief might be a trust in probabilities, but it is not complete faith in any kind of absolute truth. Scientific beliefs are changeable, and scientific truths can be disproven at any time, whereas there is less room for skepticism in something accepted on faith.

Quite simply, questioning of any variety is potentially useful, but to stop the process is not at all useful to science.



Edited for slightly more clarity...

 

[Womble]

Ahhh.......my subject is geology, so we're fairly nut-job free.

There is that expanding earth guy :lol:

*chugs on mind rotter*

Thanks, i was doing a nice job of forgetting about that 'tard.... But yes, he is to geology and creationists are to science in general. On some of those pro expanding earth vids i was shocked to see that there are elegedly ignous and metamorphic specialising geologists agreeing with it, thats essentially what a huge chunk of my degree was in. Metamorphism of certain types in rocks can only be satisfactorally explained in terms of mountain building collistions and subduction zones. I was at a conference a while ago and in the discussions and mentioned this and the general consencus was that this person could no longer call themselves a geologist and should hand in their certificates.

Oddly as well, given the fact we've had some fairly recent major breakthroughs in this branch of science, sometimes the more accurate model comes over as nut-jobbery at first.

I'd be interested in hearing more about that. I've always found geology fascnating but have never undertaken any type of survey.

Once i've posted this i'll PM you an essay i wrote on such a change from way back in the early days of geology, it's about the work of a guy called James Hutton and it's something i really enjoyed doing and reading up for. The better breakthrough to discuss would be that of Plate Tectonics (PT) and the two parts, Continental Drift (CD) and Seafloor Spreading (SS). Right, back to some basics first....before all of this was known the predominant explanation that was excepted was geosynclines, now unsurprisingly i don't know much about this, and the conference i mentioned above was all about plate tectonics so i'll be pulling from that and other sources.

Ok, so thats what was accepted and taught, now there have been others but the most well known person to point out the evidence for CD was Alfred Wegner. He was a german meteorologist, he'd done a shed load of leg work piecing together all the lines of evidence that we do use today, he presented this to the geologists of the time and they dismissed him, essentially laughing him off. The reasons for this where the lack of mechanism (bear in mind at this point we had no clue what was going on at the bottom of the oceans), it also wasn't his subject (i.e. he wasn't a geologist and in the know) and given that this was between the WW1 and WW2 his being german played into it.

So, that was in the 1930's, spin on to the post WW2 era. There was all this lovely new technology that had been developed for finding subs, so given that we needed to know more about the oceans the scientific community was essentially allowed to go and play with it, that and the excess ordinance still available (depth charges ftw). So they discover that the ocean floors arn't flat and featureless, and that there's this honking great ridge system thats at the middle of the atlantic that no one knew was there (this was with the echo sounding equipment). They also got to play with the magnetometer and were more than a little surprised to find the striped magnetism on the ocean floors.

This striped magnetism, coupled with the ridges and other things all eventually got pieced together to form SS, whilst this was being done one of the geologists involved with this even dismayed that 'it looks like continental drfit' . So, the dust was brushed off CD as SS provided the mechanism and the two make up PT, which happens to be geology's version of ToE in that it's the overiding and unifying thoery that explains most thing about how the whole of the subject works. Even though it had been established as being currect there was still a lot of resistance, a lot if uni's in the states still taught geosynclines for a time after, one of the speakers at the conferance i was even said that he failed to get a job as he had accepted PT over geosynclines because his uni had encouraged the stutends to talk about PT etc. Does that answer your question?

Oh is anyone else wants to read my Hutton essay PM me with Hutton essay in the title and i'll send it along, if people want i can also post some titles related to the stuff in this post.

 

[borrofburi]

Please define "belief".

How about this:

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

Based on this, we can reasonably say that there are a multitude of beliefs within science. Some of these are even very strongly held--the biologist who believes in relativity even though the derivation of the actual theory may be quite beyond his area of expertise. But in the spirit of the OP, we must then ask about faith.

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.

Again, we must admit that there many points of faith within the realm of science. Paramount among them would be faith in the scientific method and the peer-review process. Yes, they have proven themselves many times over but as my broker is fond of saying "past performance is no guarantee of future results." So every time I read of a new finding I am taking it on faith that the article has been properly vetted by the appropriate experts, until the evidence shows otherwise. Again, this is distinct from delusion, which has three main psychological criteria.

I do not like this definition of faith, for I think it muddles things a bit. The standard definition of faith would be: "belief without evidence". Oh certainly, there's the more colloquial "have faith", however I don't think that is a very useful term here; one of the problems being: what then is the difference between faith and belief, and honestly what's the use of another word that means almost the same thing, especially when such a definition means we lack a word to describe the "belief in things unseen" that faitheists have, especially when this discussion seems primarily to be about the distinction between scientific and faith-based beliefs?

However I rather like this definition of belief (though I don't know if I like the phrase "psychological state", but I'm not entirely certain why), and would point out that my answer to Womble's question "is there belief in science?" still does not exist. Why? Well I'd argue that all scientists believe theories, even when they're being fantastic non-delusional non-faith-based scientists; I'd also argue that I, and Womble (and most all of us at LoR) "believe in science". However I am not certain either of these interpretations are really what Womble meant, for I think Womble really meant: "is the scientific method faith-based?". That is a very different question indeed.

And requires more definitions: axiom:

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision.

I would also argue this is *very* different from faith (though an axiom can be faith-based).

Furthermore, I believe science is axiom-based, not faith-based, but that science is full of beliefs, and rightfully so. Also my answer to Aerosteon is: you fail to make a proper distinction between faith and axioms.

 

[Andiferous]

They are both uncertain and neither believer has all the answers; the difference is one has faith and belief in truth, one has belief in probability (tempered by information and reasoning) but not necessarily faith (unless you call it faith in probability - seems contradictory to me). The difference between belief in truth and belief in probability is huge; it's the end goal and the process that changes, and thus the whole mindset is completely different.

spiritual belief - uncertainty - faith/belief in truth
science - uncertainty - belief in probability

 

[e2iPi]

Once i've posted this i'll PM you an essay i wrote on such a change from way back in the early days of geology

Thanks for that whirlwind bit of history, Womble! :geek: I'm looking forward to reading your essay a little later tonight.

-1