Is Science Just a Matter of Faith?

For many years i argued that science (as it is practiced today) is a religion. it holds many of the features that we consider religious, such as acceptance of certain unprovable truths. I changed my opinion when it was pointed out to me that Descartes science (true science, as proposed by desCartes,) does not profess any standard of ethical behavior--without a lack of moral code, it cannot be a religion. (note that Descartes assumed that any scientist would already have their moral values in place by adulthood, since religion at that time was at the core of social and personal identity.)

Unfortunately, with science as it is practiced today, requiring adherence to an established set of 'scientific ethics' that line distinguishing it from religion becomes pretty blurry.

you state "We learn science by reading and memorizing, not by doing." you've got it backwards. that's not science. real science is challenging the established 'accepted' knowledge. test it for yourself. I for one was not convinced of Newtons theory of gravity till i did the math myself.

do we know what an atom is? yes, its the limit of chemical subdivision. we know this by measurement and testing. do we know what it looks like? no we do not. we have models of how people think its built, but we cannot take 'pictures' of atoms. (the closest we can come is an electron microscope which actually takes a picture of the layer of platinum we put on the atom.)

is the Higgs boson a rather important thing? well, it has been theorized to be, but no one has been even able to prove that it exists. I for one believe that it is based on a false premise-that the assumption of its existence is based not on a foundation of science, but on the renown of Higg's name. Just because someone gets something right, doesn't mean that they are right about everything. its that kind of thinking that led to more than a thousand years of bloodletting as medicine.

In sum anyone who accepts others conclusions without examining the data and the means by which the data was gained isn't a scientist, and has no right to call themselves such. anyone who thinks that's science obviously doesn't understand what science is. to such people i would recommend reading descartes 'principles of philosophy' and 'discourse on the method.'

in order for communication to exist, on any subject, a common agreement must be reached as to the definition of terms. Descartes gave us a common language to speak.

M-theory - never been experimentally proven and may never be so proven. On evolution, I would say there is more evidence for it being fact than otherwise. Also, it may not be proven, but it is correct to say that it IS PROVABLE. There is a big difference scientifically between unproven and unprovable. On the other hand, m-Theory, mathematically, its the best theory going for actually finding some equations that describe the 'holy grail' of physics which is what was once called GUTs (Grand Unified Theory) or the single equation that accurately describes all the interactions seen in nature by describing to the extent of being able to predict Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force and Gravity. IE - THE 'Theory of Everything" The singular, simplest mathematical equation from which literally everything from which everything else can be derived - either directly or through a number of steps, indirectly. Quantum Mechanics has to date been THE most accurate theory when it comes to describing what we actually see on a small scale. Relativity has to date been THE most accurate theory when it comes to describing what we actually see on a large scale. The two theories are diametrically opposed mathematically, yet M-Theory does the best job so far in linking the two together into a single theory. The problem with it is that by scientific definition is is not directly provable through experimentation - science doesn't like unprovable theories. Unproved is fine - just give some time to come up with some experiments. Unprovable (more accurately, falsifiable - it is theoretically possible to construct an experiment that has the potential to disprove the theory in question - there is a difference, but I believe the argument still words regardless - the limits at these scales are not about falsifiability but are usually proven impossible themselves so the question is academic at best) is something else - there is no experiment possible - you can't get smaller than the Planck length experimentally nor can you harness all the energy in the universe experimentally to perform tests. If its physically proven to be impossible to come up with an experiment that would either prove or disprove a given theory, that's where science gets uncomfortable and where theology starts to salivate. The deeper and deeper you go into the unprovable, the the weaker the argument from the perspective of theology, which is logically correct I think. On the other hand, when theological theories ask again and again, layer upon layer to ask more and more levels of 'just assume this to be true for a moment." Then take these temporary assumptions to be true eternally, theologians start to get nervous and scientists start chomping at the bit. The longer and more often that is done, the weaker the argument from the perspective of science, which is logically correct in my opinion as well. Doesn't mean its right or wrong, simply unprovable and to science, regardless of how accurate it might be, its inherently distasteful to deal with something that is unprovable - just like its inherently distasteful to try to empirically deal with God - God is unprovable and that has no use empirically - regardless how true it might be. That is the difference between faith and science. Science will not tolerate unprovability, whereas faith relies upon it. Without that setup, neither would function. The separation between the two gets smaller and smaller over time and as that happens, the tension between the two gets greater and greater. Intelligent Design is a manifestation of this tension politically, M-theory is a manifestation this tension scientifically, the serious religious backlask world wide is the manifestation of this tension theologically. I think we really are getting close enough to the point where hard core science and religion are being force to start asking the same kinds of questions so much that its noticeable in society. To answer your origional question though, I'll use gravity as an example. I don't think any scientist would consider the existance of gravity to be a matter of faith - that is a matter of every day experience proven every time a step is taken, thus, but definition, is not faith. However, when it comes to what's the correct way to describe gravity mathematically? That is a matter of faith - that's how far both physics and theology have come. I hope the rest of my reply has prepped you so to speak, but yeah, its to a point that the theories are so accurate - beyond the point of being able to test them directly that physicists have to ask themselves - ok, all of these theories work equally well as far as we will ever be able to prove them experimentally when it comes to describing gravity. At that point, its faith as to which theory you choose or if you choose to reject them all. Experience without the possibility of proof IS faith. Science is to a point where theories that accurately describe experience cannot be proven - IE - experience without the possibility of proof, IE faith. "The circle is now complete, when I left you I was but the learner, now I AM the master." Bad quote from an old yet brilliant science fiction file of the mid 1970's. cheesy, yet fitting. lol

Science is the collective discovery of the laws of nature, and how the universe works. While things like wave equations, quantum electrodynamics, and molecular biology seem difficult and deter "normal" people from studying them, they can actually be understood with careful study and due diligence. I learned science by doing science. They call it "laboratory courses" in college...

I really don't have faith in science. When something that goes against scientific consensus is published in a peer reviewed journal, the experiment should be replicated from the journal article with the exact same parameters to verify its reproducibility.

What an excellent point! I say science if the study of Gods creation. And yes, science requires the same faith as religion, if not more. At least in religion we have Gods word to believe and accept. In science, we have only a humans words to believe and accept on faith. Who is more likely to be right? God, Who created the universe, or some guy who thought about it? You made an excellent point, Father.

No one can be an expert in everything. As a mechanical engineer I became quite knowledgable on Newtonian physics, along with a bit of chemistry, electrical theory, and othe related sciences. I was also a biology major for a couple years before that. I learned how science works, as did my wife by studying geology.

I know the methods. I trust the methods because they give results. When was the last time praying transported you across a continent or an ocean? When did praying ever accomplish world wide instant communication. The results are there. It is not faith, it is judgement on evidence and results.

In a sense, because any knowledge ( Science is Latin for knowledge) has to have a vehicle of communication that one has faith ( trust, belief in reliability) in such as the senses

I have faith that what i see, hear, etc is real unless it can be shown that i am hallucinating

"Scientism" , a belief system by which only that which can be physically analyzed can exist or be 'real', is a faith- system as much as any other is

"I believe and profess that You are Christ the Son of the living God and that which I am about to receive is trully your Most precious Body and Blood" is the faith i live by

No, science is a matter of evidence. That's the opposite of faith.

What you're confused about is that Pickens is referring to the faith that some laypeople have in science, not the science itself. In the second part it is still true (post Feynman) that quantum mechanics works in some anti-intuitive ways. But we are starting to understand the probabilistic nature of physics at the atomic (and lower) level and have some interesting theories to deal with quantum phenomena. And the last part of your rant just goes back to Pickens comment, which again confues the scientific method (non faith) with a layman's grasp of science (which could be faith).

Yes...by Faith. I spent 48 years doing psychotherapy with patients. Change was the major constant in their behaviors. Social Science like Psychotherapy is a "slippery" science: we pick and choose whih techniques we will use for special patients/clients. And so we lack certainty and investigate the surprises God sends each day. Bless everyone online... Dan/Winston

Unlike god science isn't all about faith. Some people just have minds that are better at understanding quantum physics and some are better at understanding other things. The evidence is out their its just a liitle complicated

I enjoy taking science and trying to apply it. Sure I don't have the math skills to understand what's going on, but I can see what they have done. Scientists didn't take a walk along a river and talk to a burning bush or a talking snake or a waterwalker...they took simple steps to come to complex conclusions. I do have faith in scince, the kind of faith that is supported by reality instead of held despite reality.