Why (some?) scientists upset by the word fatih?

[alitaptap]

From Dictionary.com

faith
   [feyth] Show IPA

noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Scientists have faith in their theories when they have good data/evidence to support those theories. The faith that scientists have in the their theories is always provisional, that is, if new data/evidence overturns their theory they lose their faith in it PDQ. Religious people often have faith in their beliefs when there’s no data/evidence to support those beliefs or even when the data/evidence goes against their beliefs. Religious people see their kind of faith as a virtue. When applied to scientific investigations, scientists think religious-type faith is a detriment. Sometimes religious people willfully conflate those two different meanings of faith in an attempt to show that science is just like a religion.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Scientists have faith in their theories when they have good data/evidence to support those theories. The faith that scientists have in the their theories is always provisional, that is, if new data/evidence overturns their theory they lose their faith in it PDQ. Religious people often have faith in their beliefs when there’s no data/evidence to support those beliefs or even when the data/evidence goes against their beliefs. Religious people see their kind of faith as a virtue. When applied to scientific investigations, scientists think religious-type faith is a detriment. Sometimes religious people willfully conflate those two different meanings of faith in an attempt to show that science is just like a religion.

“Faith” doesn’t explicitly come in to play when interpreting data, testing theories, etc. Not in this crude sense that I want to believe a certain theory, and thus I will find a way to make the data support that. Although that is how some scientists operate, contrary to the ideal of the dispassionate observer who dutifully and impartially sticks to just the data. But that’s beside the point - officially that is “misconduct” although to some extent there is a motivation to toe the line as much as possible.

There is a certain simple faith that is implicit and necessary in a lot of experimental science. E.g. I calibrate a temperature probe or a pH meter, and then I have to trust that when I’m actually doing an experiment that the thing is behaving the way it did during the calibration. It’s a reasonable assumption, but that’s what it is - no practical way to prove otherwise. One tries as best as possible to rule out experimental or technical artifacts, and repeat things where possible to build a reasonable case that what you’re seeing is reproducible, but it’s generally impossible to get to a 100% certainty. Thus you’ll see results reported with a “95% confidence” and so forth. For certain types of data it is easy to compute a confidence like that. For a more complex experiment (such as you come across frequently in biology & medicine) it is actually very difficult (you have to start making assumptions about how errors are likely to be distributed, etc). It’s not faith in a religious sense, but at some point one has to decide what conclusion one can draw and how strongly one can believe it from data that is inherently a little bit ambiguous.

There are also, in some cases, some underlying assumptions that, in most cases are very reasonable and in accord with all experimental observations, but that are difficult or impossible to prove from more primitive principles. So one assumes for example, that the laws of thermodynamics are known to have always held previously, and are eminently very reasonable, and so are likely to continue to hold. Is this a type of faith? Debatable I suppose.

Finally there are cases where there are observable phenomena, but where it is very difficult to devise an experiment to conclusively distinguish between possible reasonable explanations. An interesting (if somewhat esoteric) example that comes to mind is the concept of “viable but nonculturable” bacteria… what you end up with are people who essentially come down into two separate camps, who disagree with each other’s underlying assumptions, methodologies, and even definitions. At some point it departs from the realm of empirical science, and yet the true believers in one position or the other would contend very strongly that it is only the other side that has departed. Is this faith masquerading in science? Perhaps in a way…

 

[R_C]

Scientists have faith in their theories when they have good data/evidence to support those theories. The faith that scientists have in the their theories is always provisional, that is, if new data/evidence overturns their theory they lose their faith in it PDQ. Religious people often have faith in their beliefs when there’s no data/evidence to support those beliefs or even when the data/evidence goes against their beliefs. Religious people see their kind of faith as a virtue. When applied to scientific investigations, scientists think religious-type faith is a detriment. Sometimes religious people willfully conflate those two different meanings of faith in an attempt to show that science is just like a religion.

First of all, the majority of the things that scientists have faith on may have certain evidence, the models may be very good, but it is more of a hope based on probability. It is honestly a house built on sand. We have seen how it took nothing for such valid systems as the Ptolemaic (geocentric) model and concepts such as the luminiferous aether to crumble to dust before a new discovery. Today we often talk of dark matter and dark energy in a similar way, attempting to hold together the existing models.

Faith in the science is, in many aspects, a hope that the model will work, that it will be the best approximation to reality.

Religious faith, indeed, is different. While we often confuse faith with superstition, and we call many things “faith”, true faith is built on the rock, and the rock is God. While some may not believe in His existence, those who do actually know that He exists, not just believe in His existence. Evidence does not overturn their beliefs, and there is actually plenty of evidence in support of their beliefs. That is why ever since man exists religion has existed, and that is why even in the modern age there are billions who believe in God, and the majority follow the monotheistic view of one God, the most illuminated one.

The best writing I have ever read on this topic is called Faith and Reason.

However, we have writings from very ancient times that witness how the faith of scientist and the faith of religious were, in fact, based on hope, the same hope, and what now many scientists find amusing - the existence of God - was once (and still is for many other wise scientists) an obvious fact.

The laws of nature are nothing but the mathematical thoughts of God. Euclides, 300 b.C.

The material world and the spiritual world have the same origin in the Creator. The values of science cannot in any way substitute those of revealed truth. If we were truly living in the age of science, then everyone would grasp this truth. Galilei, 1600

This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton, 1642

A little bit of science drives away from God, but a lot brings back to Him. Louis Pasteur, 1822

One year spent in the study of artificial intelligence is enough to make us believe in God. Alan Perlis, 1950

 

[afungusamongus]

Why (some?) scientists upset by the word fatih?

Because they have been indoctrinated by the scientific naturalist that if they have it they are somehow less of a scientist.