Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Should a scientist have "faith"? (philosophy of science)

#1
C C Offline
http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/2...faith.html

EXCERPTS: Scientists like to think that they are objective and unbiased, driven by hard facts and evidence-based inquiry. They are proud of saying that they only go wherever the evidence leads them. So it might come as a surprise to realize that not only are scientists as biased as non-scientists, but that they are often driven as much by belief as are non-scientists. I

n fact they are driven by more than belief: they are driven by faith. Science. Belief. Faith. Seeing these words in a sentence alone might make most scientists bristle and want to throw something at the wall or at the writer of this piece. Surely you aren’t painting us with the same brush that you might those who profess religious faith, they might say?

But there’s a method to the madness here. First consider what faith is typically defined as – it is belief in the absence of evidence. Now consider what science is in its purest form. It is a leap into the unknown, an extrapolation of what is into what can be. Breakthroughs in science by definition happen “on the edge” of the known.

Now what sits on this edge? Not the kind of hard evidence that is so incontrovertible as to dispel any and all questions. On the edge of the known, the data is always wanting, the evidence always lacking, even if not absent. On the edge of the known you have wisps of signal in a sea of noise, tantalizing hints of what may be, with never enough statistical significance to nail down a theory or idea. At the very least, the transition from “no evidence” to “evidence” lies on a continuum.

In the absence of good evidence, what does a scientist do? He or she believes. He or she has faith that things will work out. Some call it a sixth sense. Some call it intuition. But “faith” fits the bill equally.

If this reliance on faith seems like heresy, perhaps it’s reassuring to know that such heresies were committed by many of the greatest scientists of all time. All major discoveries, when they are made, at first rely on small pieces of data that are loosely held. A good example comes from the development of theories of atomic structure.

[...] Faith, at least in one important sense, is thus an important part of the mindset of a scientist. So why should scientists not nod in assent if someone then tells them that there is no difference, at least in principle, between their faith and religious faith? For two important reasons.

Firstly, the “belief” that a scientist has is still based on physical and not supernatural evidence, even if all the evidence may not yet be there. What scientists call faith is still based on data and experiments, not mystic visions and pronouncements from a holy book. More importantly, unlike religious belief, scientific belief can wax and wane with the evidence; it importantly is tentative and always subject to change. Any good scientist who believes X will be ready to let go of their belief in X if strong evidence to the contrary presents itself.

That is in fact the main difference between scientists on one hand and clergymen and politicians on the other; as Carl Sagan once asked, when was the last time you heard either of the latter say, “You know, that’s a really good counterargument. Maybe what I am saying is not true after all.”

Faith may also interestingly underlie one of the classic features of great science – serendipity. Unlike what we often believe, serendipity does not always refer to pure unplanned accident...

[...] Ultimately there’s a supremely important guiding role that faith plays in science. Scientists ignore believing at their own peril. This is because they have to constantly tread the tightrope of skepticism and wonder. Shut off your belief valve completely and you will never believe anything until there is five-sigma statistical significance for it.

Promising avenues of inquiry that are nonetheless on shaky grounds for the moment will be dismissed by you. You may never be the first explorer into rich new scientific territory. But open the belief valve completely and you will have the opposite problem. You may believe anything based on the flimsiest of evidence, opening the door to crackpots and charlatans of all kinds. So where do you draw the line?

In my mind there are a few logical rules of thumb that might help a scientist to mark out territories of non-belief from ones where leaps of faith might be warranted... (MORE - missing details)
Reply
#2
Magical Realist Offline
For scientists there must be a fundamental anthropocentric faith, neither evidenced nor logically supported, that reality or the universe is ultimately rational to the human mind. It is as arbitrary or "given" as the existence of God is for the theist. If the universe wasn't ultimately rational, then there would be no science. The question remains open: who or what decides what is rational and what is irrational?
Reply
#3
Yazata Offline
(Apr 18, 2022 06:04 PM)C C Wrote: EXCERPTS: Scientists like to think that they are objective and unbiased, driven by hard facts and evidence-based inquiry. They are proud of saying that they only go wherever the evidence leads them. So it might come as a surprise to realize that not only are scientists as biased as non-scientists, but that they are often driven as much by belief as are non-scientists.

Belief is a propositional attitude that exists whenever somebody sincerely asserts that a proposition is true. It's hard to imagine how scientists could practice science without believing that something is true.

Quote:In fact they are driven by more than belief: they are driven by faith. Science. Belief. Faith. Seeing these words in a sentence alone might make most scientists bristle and want to throw something at the wall or at the writer of this piece. Surely you aren’t painting us with the same brush that you might those who profess religious faith, they might say?

I'd define faith as trust and confidence in propositions whose truth hasn't been conclusively justified. Scientists reason inductively after all. They make great use of inference to the best explanation (abduction). They have tremendous confidence in mathematics and logic, despite their metaphysical and epistemological foundations remaining exceedingly murky.

And just look at scientists when they are addressing aspects of life outside science. Scientists have no end of political opinions and moral intuitions.

Quote:But there’s a method to the madness here. First consider what faith is typically defined as – it is belief in the absence of evidence.

Or at least belief in the absence of conclusive evidence.

Quote:Now consider what science is in its purest form. It is a leap into the unknown, an extrapolation of what is into what can be. Breakthroughs in science by definition happen “on the edge” of the known.

Now what sits on this edge? Not the kind of hard evidence that is so incontrovertible as to dispel any and all questions. On the edge of the known, the data is always wanting, the evidence always lacking, even if not absent. On the edge of the known you have wisps of signal in a sea of noise, tantalizing hints of what may be, with never enough statistical significance to nail down a theory or idea. At the very least, the transition from “no evidence” to “evidence” lies on a continuum.

Yes. I'm inclined to think that 'truth' and 'falsity' are intellectual ideals that are rarely encountered in their pure form. For every purported truth, there's usually some remaining possibility that it might be wrong. And for every purported falsehood, there's some residual possibility that it might be true. So what we seem to have is a continuum of plausibility and likelihood in between T and F. I think that the philosophy of science is gradually recognizing this and it's one reason why there's so much current interest in 'Bayesianism'.

Quote:In the absence of good evidence, what does a scientist do? He or she believes. He or she has faith that things will work out. Some call it a sixth sense. Some call it intuition. But “faith” fits the bill equally.

I don't want to smear hypotheses together with items of faith. A hypothesis is a speculation. It doesn't become faith unless somebody believes, trusts and relies on it. I prefer to think of mathematics as an article of faith among scientists, particularly theoretical physicists who sometimes seem to place greater credence in their mathematics than in the physical reality in which they live. (Which isn't a good place for an ostensible physicist to be.)

Quote:If this reliance on faith seems like heresy, perhaps it’s reassuring to know that such heresies were committed by many of the greatest scientists of all time. All major discoveries, when they are made, at first rely on small pieces of data that are loosely held. A good example comes from the development of theories of atomic structure.

All creative scientists invent hypotheses and try to explore their implications. The key is remembering that they are speculations that might be true and not facts known to be true.

Quote:Faith, at least in one important sense, is thus an important part of the mindset of a scientist. So why should scientists not nod in assent if someone then tells them that there is no difference, at least in principle, between their faith and religious faith? For two important reasons.

Firstly, the “belief” that a scientist has is still based on physical and not supernatural evidence, even if all the evidence may not yet be there.

That seems to explicitly embrace physicalism or at least a hard sense-empiricism, the idea that knowledge can only come from sensory experience. Once again it leaves logic and mathematics dangling (my favorite problem cases) since logical and mathematical relationships seem to be discovered conceptually and their deductive necessity simply intuited and not sensed.

And our scientists will be on even weaker ground if they start tossing around ideas like 'right' and 'wrong' in any moral sense. And what about psychological states? We probably don't want to throw out things like pleasure, sadness, anxiety or love, just because we can't see them, hear them or interact physically with them.

But if we start expanding the boundaries of empiricism to accept logical, mathematical, moral and psychological experiences and intuitions, why exclude religious experiences or intuitions?

Quote:What scientists call faith is still based on data and experiments

Buddhist monastics practice meditation techniques whose results can be experienced. Meditation practices can be tested in that experimental way. Generations of monastics have verified their effectiveness, but do they work for you in particular? You will only know empirically, by trying the practice and experiencing the results. (Even if the experience isn't a conventional sensory experience.)

Quote:not mystic visions

But mathematical and logical intuitions are supposed to be different? Moral intuitions. Intuitions of our own psychological states. Why?

Quote:and pronouncements from a holy book.

Scientists at the university level learn much of what they know from textbooks. And pretty much everything that a working scientist knows about any aspect of science that isn't the subject of his or her own research, was learned by reading or by talking to other scientists. It's all trust in authorities.

Quote:More importantly, unlike religious belief, scientific belief can wax and wane with the evidence; it importantly is tentative and always subject to change. Any good scientist who believes X will be ready to let go of their belief in X if strong evidence to the contrary presents itself.

Climate change? Scientific issues that touch on race and gender? I don't think so. Many scientists seem to be as invested in the truth of their doctrines as any religious believer.

And even a cursory study of the history of Christian theology will show no end of ideas waxing and waning in response to rational argument. Christological controveries (what is the nature of Christ and what is his relation to God?) Anthropological controversies (What is a human being and how does the human will work?) Ecclesiastical controversies (what is the proper nature and organization of the church?) Soteriological controversies (what is salvation and how does it work?) Islam is filled with its own issues and controversies. It's what the various schools of Hindu and Buddhist philosophy are all about.

I guess that my point in this post is that the dividing line between science and religion is fuzzier and more indistinct than many would like to believe.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  New Scientist Weekly (science news updates) C C 0 99 Jan 12, 2024 10:09 PM
Last Post: C C
  Scientists can hold on to their religious faith + People with ostrich foot syndrome C C 0 131 Aug 22, 2022 06:49 PM
Last Post: C C
  Why you should believe in the digital afterlife + Real reason turtles have shells C C 2 838 Jul 21, 2016 12:38 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)