Why Scientism is a Faith

[Anselm33]

“La foi consiste a’ croire ce que la raison ne croit pas…Il ne suffit pas qu’un chose soit possible pour la croire.” Faith is the belief in that for which reason gives no basis to believe…It is not enough for a thing to be possible for it to be believed. Voltaire, Questions sur l’Encyclopedie

Unbelievers commonly say that those who believe in God do so on faith, and therefore their belief is irrational.   This argument is flawed because it neglects the element of faith that is basic to all belief, whether in mathematics, science, philosophy, or in our encounters with the world around us.    Consider, for example, Euclid's geometry, the most rational and logical of all the math we learned at school.   You start off with postulates or axioms, statements that are presumed to be self-evident and don't need proof (that is, statements that one takes on faith).  So, for the parallel postulate

“If a line segment intersects two straight lines forming two interior angles on the same side that sum to less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles sum to less than two right angles”.

However, this parallel postulate is valid for Euclid’s geometry, but not for that of Reimann or Lobachevsky. so it is faith that would determine which parallel postulate we choose (or the application to a physical situation–just think of the angles of a triangle on a sphere). Similarly, the commutative property for multiplication, a times b = b times a, independent of the order of multiplication, is valid for arithmetic and ordinary variables in algebra, but not always for other mathematical quantities, e.g. matrices or quantum mechanical operators.

To all the above, the devout believer in scientism might reply, “so what, that's all abstract mathematical stuff—it doesn't have anything to do with the real world, like science does”.   And  to that assertion I will reply, the belief that science explains everything about the world is itself an article of faith; it can't be proven by science.   You can't do a scientific experiment to show that everything is explained by science.   That statement about what science can do is, in fact, a metaphysical argument

          And, if to many of you metaphysics is a dirty word (or nonsensical), let me ask, if you believe that science tells us everything about the physical world, how many of you have actually confirmed this, rather than taking the word of others?   How many of you have done measurement to prove that the force of gravity is  inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two masses?  How many of you have done the double-slit experiment with individual particles to show the strange  superposition principle of quantum mechanics.    And I don't say that it is wrong to take the word of others as evidence for something.   That is how our belief system operates.   As a scientist, a physicist 57 years in the field, I believe, along with Galileo that “The Laws of Nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics”, and that theories that are confirmed by repeated measurements reflect the nature of the real world, although possibly incompletely.

Besides taking the word of others in scientific matters, I take the word of others with respect to religious matters.   I believe the writings of Alexis Carrel, a Nobel Prize winner (and prior to that observation, not a devout Catholic) that a miracle occurred at Lourdes. [catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=2866&CFID=57620704&CFTOKEN=69694874](http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=2866&CFID=57620704&CFTOKEN=69694874)

And as the Catholic Church does in rigorous canonization procedures, I believe in verified miracles, even though these, unlike scientific experiments, are not replicable or controlled. Most importantly, I believe in the greatest miracle of all, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as attested in the New Testament. How else would a bunch of semi-literate fishermen spread a religion that preached no advantage, other than the unverified prospect of salvation, throughout a cynical and materialist world?

So you can believe in your faith, scientism, that science explains everything there is to know about the world, but don't claim that it is more rational or rewarding than my religious faith.   There is so much that science doesn't explain and never will be able to explain in terms of values, morality, beauty and purpose, that I feel sorry for those who have only scientism to support them.

PS—the quotation in French was chosen, not for one-upmanship, but because it is the best definition of faith that I could find, and I wanted it to be in the original French so that linguists better than I could do their own translation.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Although this is a long post it is well written and well argued, and a pleasure to read. I agree with all your points.

A particularly relevant point is that science relies on trusting the observations of others. The same could be said of history. Does anyone doubt that Wellington defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, or that in 1492 Columbus discovered the Americas? Yet what “proof” do we have, other than the evidence of others?

And we apply “trust” completely in our relationships and judgements. If my brother were to tell me that he his wife has had a child then I would be 100% confident that his wife has had a child - because I know that this is something he could neither be deluded about, nor attempt to deceive me with.

Nice work!

Edmundus

 

[awatkins69]

I agree with a lot of what you say here. We all really do rest upon some authority of others, and we are not irrational for doing so. Nobody has the ability to find out every little detail for himself. Moreover, I’ve never understood why proving out every detail all by yourself makes you more epistemically justified than the person who believes in a reliable authority.

Ultimately we’re going to have to rely on some kind of faith, or at least some unquestioned things. If it’s in regards to science, there are going to be some unproven assumptions, such as the general reliability of the senses, the existence of an external world, our ability to discover truth, etc. Of course, I think we should believe that science can tell us about the real world. I think that in terms of a reasoning it’s the most reliable method of doing so.

BTW, I like reading quotations in their original language, just for the sake of it!

 

[Rocinante]

Unbelievers commonly say that those who believe in God do so on faith, and therefore their belief is irrational.

you quoted voltaire: “Faith is the belief in that for which reason gives no basis to believe.” (i think that definition is demeaning to faith) if so, then faith is at least nonrational. if someone believes something when reason suggests that belief is false, that would be irrational.

This argument is flawed because it neglects the element of faith that is basic to all belief, whether in mathematics, science, philosophy, or in our encounters with the world around us. Consider, for example, Euclid’s geometry, the most rational and logical of all the math we learned at school. You start off with postulates or axioms, statements that are presumed to be self-evident and don’t need proof (that is, statements that one takes on faith). So, for the parallel postulate However, this parallel postulate is valid for Euclid’s geometry, but not for that of Reimann or Lobachevsky. so it is faith that would determine which parallel postulate we choose (or the application to a physical situation–just think of the angles of a triangle on a sphere). Similarly, the commutative property for multiplication, a times b = b times a, independent of the order of multiplication, is valid for arithmetic and ordinary variables in algebra, but not always for other mathematical quantities, e.g. matrices or quantum mechanical operators.

it is actually your argument that is flawed here. there are obviously good reasons to believe that A times B equals B times A and that euclid’s geometry is best for some problems and lobachevsky’s for others. these aren’t choices made on faith.

To all the above, the devout believer in scientism might reply, “so what, that's all abstract mathematical stuff—it doesn't have anything to do with the real world, like science does”.   And  to that assertion I will reply, the belief that science explains everything about the world is itself an article of faith; it can't be proven by science.

you defined faith but you didn’t explicitly define scientism, but we can take your view of scientism to be the notion that “science can explain everything.” i also recall that you take a very narrow view of science which is typical of scientistic people.

scientism usually refers to science as a method and is the epistemological view that only that which is proven through the scientific method can qualify as knowledge. scientism is then hoisted on its own petard since the scientific method can’t be proven with the scientific method.

You can’t do a scientific experiment to show that everything is explained by science. That statement about what science can do is, in fact, a metaphysical argument.

true (though i don’t see anything metaphysical about it), but that doesn’t mean we don’t have good reason to believe that science can answer questions. no one needs to accept science on faith (by voltaire’s definition) since we have good reasons to believe in scientific explanations.

As a scientist, a physicist 57 years in the field, I believe, along with Galileo that “The Laws of Nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics”, and that theories that are confirmed by repeated measurements reflect the nature of the real world, although possibly incompletely.

this is certainly a statement of faith but it is not shared by all scientists. for example, einstein said, “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

 

[OvrlapnMagstria]

Very nicely written and I agree with what you said about taking other peoples word on matters. I certainly do take Newton’s equation on gravitation based on the words of others, as I have never had the chance to measure it myself. I take the word of scientists on many of my other beliefs as well (although I did have the opportunity to perform a double-slit experiment in college, so I do have first hand experience with that one )

However, I do see a large difference between this type of faith and the type of faith seen in many religions. I think you touched on on this yourself, although you may not have realized it:

…even though these, unlike scientific experiments, are not replicable or controlled.

The difference of repliciation is huge.

I personally have never observed RNA transcription; I take the scientists word for it. However, the key thing is that I can observe it if I were to take the time to perform the proper experiments and take the observations. Scientific ideas are replicable. Although it may be impractical for the layperson to do, scientific ideas can be replicated and confirmed (or, at times, dis-proven) here and now.

Religious faith seems different. How can we replicate and observe miracles, purgatory, or other religious tenants? We are often asked to take the word of religious leaders, and that’s it. Many times I have tried to find a way to confirm or make sense of these types of things, and the response ends with “we take this as an article of faith.”

I am sure you are familiar with the saying “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” When a claim is made that is extraordinary, and it cannot be replicated, it is very hard to get that evidence.

So, I’m not sure if we can classify Scientism as a “faith”; at least not the same type as religious faith.

 

[Rocinante]

Very nicely written and I agree with what you said about taking other peoples word on matters. I certainly do take Newton’s equation on gravitation based on the words of others, as I have never had the chance to measure it myself. I take the word of scientists on many of my other beliefs as well…

let’s recall that Anselm is asserting that taking a scientists word for it is an act of faith. it is in a sense faith since faith also means “trust,” but it is not faith according to the definition that Anselm gave for faith and the view of faith he wants to defend:

“Faith is the belief in that for which reason gives no basis to believe”

promoting faith on this definition (which i have said is a demeaning definition to all people of faith) is to promote the notion that it is good to believe things that we have no good reason to believe.

but we don’t believe scientists for no good reason. we have lots of good reasons to believe what scientists say about newton’s equations even without measuring them ourselves. for example, we know that such people have gone through rigorous training and have done the measurements and have no reason to lie about what they observed. we also know that because of the way science works, if a scientist says something that is not supported by the evidence then other scientists will call him on it. scientists make names for themselves by correcting one another’s errors based on the evidence (not based on faith).

so this notion of faith as the permission (and even encouragement) that religious people give one another to express certainty of beliefs on insufficient evidence is nothing supported by science. it is opposed to science and opposed by the practice of science.

rocinante

 

[Anselm33]

Very nicely written and I agree with what you said about taking other peoples word on matters. I certainly do take Newton’s equation on gravitation based on the words of others, as I have never had the chance to measure it myself. I take the word of scientists on many of my other beliefs as well (although I did have the opportunity to perform a double-slit experiment in college, so I do have first hand experience with that one )

However, I do see a large difference between this type of faith and the type of faith seen in many religions. I think you touched on on this yourself, although you may not have realized it:

The difference of repliciation is huge.

I personally have never observed RNA transcription; I take the scientists word for it. However, the key thing is that I can observe it if I were to take the time to perform the proper experiments and take the observations. Scientific ideas are replicable. Although it may be impractical for the layperson to do, scientific ideas can be replicated and confirmed (or, at times, dis-proven) here and now.

Religious faith seems different. How can we replicate and observe miracles, purgatory, or other religious tenants? We are often asked to take the word of religious leaders, and that’s it. Many times I have tried to find a way to confirm or make sense of these types of things, and the response ends with “we take this as an article of faith.”

I am sure you are familiar with the saying “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” When a claim is made that is extraordinary, and it cannot be replicated, it is very hard to get that evidence.

So, I’m not sure if we can classify Scientism as a “faith”; at least not the same type as religious faith.

Reproducibility is what makes science science; a large part of that reproducibility lies in quantitation, so that what is observed is objective, not subjective. On the other hand single events in a non-scientific context can be judged “true” or “false”, worthy of belief or not. A murderer can be judged guilty (or “not guilty”) in a jury trial, and the same event does not have to be repeated. This kind of judgment, however, is not science.

And I was familiar with "Extraordinary Claims… " statement. But what could be more extraordinary, as I said in my original post, than a group of semi-literate yahoos (I except St. Paul from this) spreading the Gospel with no more than second-hand accounts of the Resurrection and promises of eternal life herafter?
Anselm
PS–I assume you did the double-slit experiment as an optical experiment, Young’s interference, but not with single particles (or photons)–this last would take very sophisticated equipment.
PPS–Thanks to all for the kind words about the writing–it came from the heart, and it’s nice to be appreciated for style, if not for content.

 

[OvrlapnMagstria]

Reproducibility is what makes science science; a large part of that reproducibility lies in quantitation, so that what is observed is objective, not subjective. On the other hand single events in a non-scientific context can be judged “true” or “false”, worthy of belief or not. A murderer can be judged guilty (or “not guilty”) in a jury trial, and the same event does not have to be repeated. This kind of judgment, however, is not science.

And I was familiar with "Extraordinary Claims… " statement. But what could be more extraordinary, as I said in my original post, than a group of semi-literate yahoos (I except St. Paul from this) spreading the Gospel with no more than second-hand accounts of the Resurrection and promises of eternal life herafter?
Anselm
PS–I assume you did the double-slit experiment as an optical experiment, Young’s interference, but not with single particles (or photons)–this last would take very sophisticated equipment.
PPS–Thanks to all for the kind words about the writing–it came from the heart, and it’s nice to be appreciated for style, if not for content.

I agree, historical events cannot be replicated in the same way scientific concepts can (Let’s ask Washington to cross the Delaware again so we can watch! ) I was responding mostly to the idea of scientism having faith; equating the trust in scientists to religious faith is a stretch.

In terms of extraordinary evidence, the proliferation of Christianity does show that it’s ideas and beliefs are attractive, I have no doubt about that. However, it does not show that these beliefs are necessarily based in fact.

The very same argument could be made for Buddhism, for example. Buddhism teaches to live a very simple life, in contrast to material desires. It offers only unsubstantiated claims of reincarnation as higher beings. This belief system also was able to spread to and gain over 300 million adherents all from the teachings of one man. Is that evidence enough to say that people really are reincarnated and that the laws of Karma exist? No, I think it just says that Buddhist beliefs are attractive. Maybe they’re true, maybe not.

PS. Yes it was just the double slit interference that I did. Though I *could *do it with single particles, if I had the dedication and money. However another cool thing i got to do was observe the photoelectric effect: what Einstein got the Nobel for explaining. Our results matched! Einstein was right!

 

[Anselm33]

The difference of repliciation is huge.

I personally have never observed RNA transcription; I take the scientists word for it. However, the key thing is that I can observe it if I were to take the time to perform the proper experiments and take the observations. Scientific ideas are replicable. Although it may be impractical for the layperson to do, scientific ideas can be replicated and confirmed (or, at times, dis-proven) here and now.

Religious faith seems different. How can we replicate and observe miracles, purgatory, or other religious tenants? We are often asked to take the word of religious leaders, and that’s it. Many times I have tried to find a way to confirm or make sense of these types of things, and the response ends with “we take this as an article of faith.”

.

One point I didn’t think of when I responded at first regards the notion of replication as validation. That in itself lies outside the domain of logic. It is certainly reasonable, that if we see the sun rise in the (east? yes…senior moment) for 99 times we’ll expect it to rise in the east tomorrow. But that’s not a logical proof that it will always rise in the east. Reproducibility is in itself a matter of how we learn (and how animals learn), but it is not entirely rational. We get into Bayesian notions of probability and belief if we introduce reproducibility, and we can always fall into the Gambler’s fallacy.

I maintain again that miracles do not have to be repeated, if the testimony to them is substantial, any more than the actions of the accused have to be repeated for verification in a trial. One time witnessing (reliable) is sufficient. As for other items of religious belief, I go back to the priest who was doing my catechesis when I converted (this was 16 years ago, before RCIA). When I found it difficult to believe in certain articles of faith–transubstantation, the Assumption–he told me that if you believe in the possibility of these, faith will come. This was the same argument Pascal had used in his wager to lead the non-believer to full faith, that if one follows the forms full faith will come. And it is, like science, a whole package. For my scientific faith, it isn’t that I believe in quarks, but not in the violation of Bell’s theorem. They’re both part of the one package. And similarly, purgatory, salvation, the Trinity, the Resurrection, the Pope as Vicar of Christ, are all one part of a cohesive structure of faith and belief.
thanks for your comments.
Anselm

 

[_Locke]

One point I didn’t think of when I responded at first regards the notion of replication as validation. That in itself lies outside the domain of logic. It is certainly reasonable, that if we see the sun rise in the (east? yes…senior moment) for 99 times we’ll expect it to rise in the east tomorrow. But that’s not a logical proof that it will always rise in the east. Reproducibility is in itself a matter of how we learn (and how animals learn), but it is not entirely rational. We get into Bayesian notions of probability and belief if we introduce reproducibility, and we can always fall into the Gambler’s fallacy.

What you’re describing now is the problem of induction which is a WHOLE other issue.

I maintain again that miracles do not have to be repeated, if the testimony to them is substantial, any more than the actions of the accused have to be repeated for verification in a trial. One time witnessing (reliable) is sufficient.

Hume would agree. However, Hume would go further and say that there has never been a miracle with enough witnesses of sufficient honesty, intelligence, and education to meet this condition.

Anselm33:

As for other items of religious belief, I go back to the priest who was doing my catechesis when I converted (this was 16 years ago, before RCIA). When I found it difficult to believe in certain articles of faith–transubstantation, the Assumption–he told me that if you believe in the possibility of these, faith will come. This was the same argument Pascal had used in his wager to lead the non-believer to full faith, that if one follows the forms full faith will come. And it is, like science, a whole package. For my scientific faith, it isn’t that I believe in quarks, but not in the violation of Bell’s theorem. They’re both part of the one package. And similarly, purgatory, salvation, the Trinity, the Resurrection, the Pope as Vicar of Christ, are all one part of a cohesive structure of faith and belief.
thanks for your comments.
Anselm

I think it’s far too much an oversimplification of science to say it’s a “whole package” and that it must be accepted as such. It’s merely a way of studying the world. There is lively debate on a whole variety of issues; our degree of certainty of how the universe began is much less than on the theory of electromagnetism. Certainly no one would ask you to accept it on faith. Research in every field is freely shared; if you doubt the theory of special relativity you can test it! And I think this is the same attitude that should be taken to religious articles of faith (the degrees of certainty part, not the testing part); wouldn’t you say you are more certain that Jesus lived, than that purgatory exists or that God is triune? One must winnow truth from the “opinion that has survived.” (A paraphrase of an Oscar Wilde quote)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Locke

Hume would agree. However, Hume would go further and say that there has never been a miracle with enough witnesses of sufficient honesty, intelligence, and education to meet this condition.

It wouldn’t matter to Hume how many witnesses there were or what degree of credibility might belong to them. Hume did not believe in God, a pre-requisite to believing in miracles. Since he didn’t believe in God, there is no way he would believe in miracles if one slapped in in the face. He would explain it away as an optical illusion.

wouldn’t you say you are more certain that Jesus lived, than that purgatory exists or that God is triune? One must winnow truth from the “opinion that has survived.”

I am equally certain of all three. Why not?

 

[edwest2]

Today, a number of scientists have made purely philosophical belief statements about evolution, for example. Those who are offended by miracles sometimes make the faith statement that science will discover the cause of miracles. However, since miracles still occur in recent history, we have an answer for the skeptic.

God sent Mary in history. But, not every claim made for healing at Lourdes survives further investigation.

So we read our newspapers or watch TV and we are constantly told many things, including scientific things, which we often accept on faith. We assume the scientific expert is indeed unbiased and has no other agenda but to give us facts, and even inspire us. I was so inspired by seeing scientists at work on TV that I considered being a chemist. I even attended electronics school.

But the moment any scientist combines scientific information with personal philosophical beliefs, he ceases to promote science but a personal interpretation system. It is a real problem today.

God bless,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

PS–I assume you did the double-slit experiment as an optical experiment, Young’s interference, but not with single particles (or photons)–this last would take very sophisticated equipment.

Not very sophisticated at all. In addition to the normal Young’s set up all you need is means to attenuate the signal enough that you are measuring individual photons (ie only one photon in instrument at any one time which for a half meter long arrangement requires a total count rate less than 600 MHz or less than 0.2nW) - say an optical pinhole and some collimation; a photomultiplier tube or an avalanche photodiode; and means to track the detector across the image plane - eg a micrometer stage. You are now all set to measure the photon arrival frequency at different places in the image plane and to observe that the arrival frequency as a function of position is proportional to the intensity of conventional Young’s fringes, even though there is less than one photon in the system at any one time. As long as the detection rate is above the dark count at room temp, you don’t even have to cool the detector. This is not terribly sophisticated and should be well within the means of a project in an undergrad lab, or even a well equipped school lab. Oh - you also need to put the experiment in a box to exclude extraneous light. All of it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Anselm33]

Not very sophisticated at all. In addition to the normal Young’s set up all you need is means to attenuate the signal enough that you are measuring individual photons (ie only one photon in instrument at any one time which for a half meter long arrangement requires a total count rate less than 600 MHz or less than 0.2nW) - say an optical pinhole and some collimation; a photomultiplier tube or an avalanche photodiode; and means to track the detector across the image plane - eg a micrometer stage. You are now all set to measure the photon arrival frequency at different places in the image plane and to observe that the arrival frequency as a function of position is proportional to the intensity of conventional Young’s fringes, even though there is less than one photon in the system at any one time. As long as the detection rate is above the dark count at room temp, you don’t even have to cool the detector. This is not terribly sophisticated and should be well within the means of a project in an undergrad lab, or even a well equipped school lab. Oh - you also need to put the experiment in a box to exclude extraneous light. All of it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

yo alec, are you saying that conventional detectors could detect single photon events? I’m not disputing that claim–that kind of experimental technique is above my pay scale (set in nuclear magnetons)… --but I find it suprising. Is there an online reference somewhere, cause if it hasn’t been done it should be?
Anselm
PS–I did find a link, but at Harvard—a little above secondary school, but not too much.
Thanks for the information.
fas.harvard.edu/~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/SinglePhotonInterference.html

 

[hecd2]

yo alec, are you saying that conventional detectors could detect single photon events? I’m not disputing that claim–that kind of experimental technique is above my pay scale (set in nuclear magnetons)… --but I find it suprising. Is there an online reference somewhere, cause if it hasn’t been done it should be?
Anselm
PS–I did find a link, but at Harvard—a little above secondary school, but not too much.
Thanks for the information.
fas.harvard.edu/~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/SinglePhotonInterference/SinglePhotonInterference.html

Well, there you go - they are using a low light level camera that has two-stages of image intensifier - although not terribly sophisticated it’ll be quite pricey I suspect. Its quantum efficiency is only about 0.1% so it only detects one in a thousand photons, but because you can have 300 - 600 million photons per second and still have less than one in the apparatus at any instant, the low quantum efficiency doesn’t matter. The advantage of their setup is that you can see the fringes building up point by point on the storage scope, whereas in the setup I suggested you have to physically move the detector (photomultiplier or avalanche photodiode) across the image plane and count photons and then subsequently plot their density. But the point is that in either case, you actually could do this in a first class school lab project. It’s really not that sophisticated. Google PMTs and APDs used in Geiger mode. It’s a groovy experiment because it demonstrates the bizarre behaviour of light at first hand.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Rocinante]

I agree with a lot of what you say here. We all really do rest upon some authority of others, and we are not irrational for doing so. Nobody has the ability to find out every little detail for himself. Moreover, I’ve never understood why proving out every detail all by yourself makes you more epistemically justified than the person who believes in a reliable authority.

Ultimately we’re going to have to rely on some kind of faith, or at least some unquestioned things. If it’s in regards to science, there are going to be some unproven assumptions, such as the general reliability of the senses, the existence of an external world, our ability to discover truth, etc. Of course, I think we should believe that science can tell us about the real world. I think that in terms of a reasoning it’s the most reliable method of doing so.

i don’t see this at all as a matter of faith in the sense that anselm defined it. “Faith is the belief in that for which reason gives no basis to believe.”

notice that there was a bait and switch in the OP. faith was originally defined as believing when there is no basis in reason (presumably how anselm sees his religion but demeaning to religion in general) but was then stretched to apply to believing whenever we have good reasons but we don’t have 100% certainty in proof and later to believing what other people tell us in general.

sure we trust what experts say about history and science, but that is a different sort of faith. that is not believing when there is no good reason to believe. we have lots of good reasons to believe experts as reliable authorities on certain matters.

it is in no way a good thing or a virtue to believe things that we have no good reason to believe. that is a usage of the word “faith” that simply needs to go away. religious people generally claim to have good reason for their religious beliefs so faith as “belief in that for which reason gives no basis to believe” simply does not apply. nor should it. this is a view (the view that it is somehow more virtuous to believe when we don’t have good reason than when we do) that science opposes and we should all oppose.

rocinante

 

[AntiTheist]

I don’t know exactly how many times I’m going to see the same nonsense argument trotted out as if it made any sense at all. It runs like this: “Knowledge isn’t absolute, we can’t be totally sure about every last thing, and there are some quaint philosophical conundrums that we can amuse ourselves with…therefore, I’m justified in believing a claim without sufficient evidence.”

It just doesn’t become a good argument no matter how many ways you try to say it or new examples you try to give.

Yes, math relies on postulates. Yes, we determine history through the best evidence available, and there are some areas in history that we know more about than others. Yes, we can come up with amusing philosophical problems like, “How do we know reality is really real?”

All of the above is completely and totally irrelevant to the fact that we use evidence-based inquiry to determine whether claims are likely to be true. The more valid evidence we can assemble that supports a claim, the more likely the claim is to be true.

You can’t get around this, no matter how hard you try to plug up your ears and convince yourself that everyone else operates on “faith” because knowledge isn’t absolute.

I just noted in another thread that “scientism” is a silly strawman. No one – materialists included – thinks “science can answer all questions.” Science deals with what stuff is, what stuff is made of, and how stuff works. Any subject that pertains to questions outside of those subjects is outside of the domain of science. For example, science can’t tell me what I should have for dinner or what I should do with my Saturday night.

It’s not a “faith” to say that science is the best – and only – way to come to reliable conclusions about what stuff is, what stuff is made of, and how stuff works. We have tons and tons and tons of evidence that this is so.

 

[Anselm33]

It’s not a “faith” to say that science is the best – and only – way to come to reliable conclusions about what stuff is, what stuff is made of, and how stuff works. We have tons and tons and tons of evidence that this is so.

I very much agree with your opinion about science, I’ve rejoiced in it for 57 years, but my original thread was directed against those who believe that science can give the only truth.

There’s lots and lots of things that are more important than what “stuff” is made of and how “stuff” works. And it is the case, in fact, when you get to quantum mechanics and cosmology, that science, in its present state, is up against what d’Espagnat (the head of the French physics lab that showed the violation of Bell’s Theorem) calls “a veiled reality”. (and is likely to remain so, according to informed opinion). GRF Ellis says that ultimate speculations about the origin of the very early Universe will have to rely on philosophy/metaphysics, because there are not and will not be observations (by physical principles) to confirm or deny these theories.
So, in my opinion (and lots of other scientists), science can go up to a point, and then it takes philosophy/metaphysics to understand the world around us more completely.
Anselm

 

[AntiTheist]

I agree with your opinion, but it really applies to technology, not science.

No, my opinion applies to science, which is the best – and only – method of knowing what stuff is, what stuff is made of, and how stuff works. If you think that there is a better method to know things about what stuff is, what stuff is made of, and how stuff works, please state the method and demonstrate how you know that is better.

There’s lots and lots of things that are more important than what “stuff” is made of and how “stuff” works.

Sure. What I want to eat and what I want to do on a Saturday night are a heck of a lot more important to me than how many subatomic particles we can identify.

And it is the case, in fact, when you get to quantum mechanics and cosmology, that science, in its present state, is up against what d’Espagnat (the head of the French physics lab that showed the violation of Bell’s Theorem) calls “a veiled reality”. (and is likely to remain so, according to informed opinion).

Which, again, demonstrates that knowledge is not absolute and that our petty little brains may not be able to figure out every last thing about the universe.

But the fact that knowledge is not absolute doesn’t mean that we are justified in taking claims on faith, which is what your OP is trying to say.

So, in my opinion (and lots of other scientists), science can go up to a point, and then it takes philosophy/metaphysics to understand more completely.

If science can only go up to a point, then that tells us that science can only go up to a point. It does not imply that there has to be some other method of knowing that is superior to science.

Again, if you think that there is a method of knowing that is superior to science, let’s see you demonstrate it and how you know that it is superior.

 

[AntiTheist]

I very much agree with your opinion about science, I’ve rejoiced in it for 57 years, but my original thread was directed against those who believe that science can give the only truth.

And in response to this edit, I can only repeat that almost no one thinks that science can give “the only truth.”

The term “scientism” is a huge strawman. Science can only ever tell us things about what stuff is, what stuff is made of, and how stuff works. And even then, as you’ve noted, it may have its limits.

But so what? That doesn’t mean that there has to be some other method of knowing stuff that is superior, and it certainly doesn’t mean that we’re justified in accepting claims on faith.