Taking science on "faith"

[open_sketchbook]

I realized something earlier today that in hindsight seems totally obvious to me. I don't think I'm a stupid person by any means, but I basically take science on faith no differently than a believer takes his religion on faith. I do my best to understand scientific concepts, but as hard as I try my comprehension of the underlying physics of our universe cuts of somewhere on the mesonic level. Try as I might, I can't really wrap my head around planck's constant being the smallest measurement of both space and time, and I still have questions about evolution (namely the formation of the process of blood clotting, light sensitive cells and the flagellum, to name the big ones) that I can't seem to rationalize with my understanding of science. Yet I fall completely in step with scientific views, accept whatever comes out of scientific journals as fact, and consider myself an atheist. I can't understand all of it, but I believe it with no less certainty than a creationist believes the Earth was created in seven days.

I've never really been solid about my scientific believes; for a very long time I described myself as a deist out of uncertainty and the more I learn scientifically the more that label seems to fit my views. I know all this makes me an idiot, but does believing in scientific concepts while not truly understanding them all make me a hypocrite as well?

[General Zod]

I've never really been solid about my scientific believes; for a very long time I described myself as a deist out of uncertainty and the more I learn scientifically the more that label seems to fit my views. I know all this makes me an idiot, but does believing in scientific concepts while not truly understanding them all make me a hypocrite as well?

The thing is scientific principles can be independently verified, so they don't really require "belief". But if you don't understand the principles it's harder to distinguish good science from junk science, or nonsense masquerading as science like creationism so you're more susceptible to buying into whatever bullshit sounds really good.

[open_sketchbook]

However, I personally can't verify anything. While I certainly know more about, say, physics than your average joe, I can only repeat what I've read and assume it to be true. And outside of theoretical mathematics we can't verify anything we can't see with an electron microscope. Wouldn't a certain belief in those things be a form of faith?

[Samuel]

However, I personally can't verify anything. While I certainly know more about, say, physics than your average joe, I can only repeat what I've read and assume it to be true. And outside of theoretical mathematics we can't verify anything we can't see with an electron microscope. Wouldn't a certain belief in those things be a form of faith?

Not if they get emperical results. You may not understand how quantum mechanics works, but you can see it in action. The proof is in the pudding.

[Darth Wong]

However, I personally can't verify anything.

Yes, but you know the procedures for doing so are all fully documented. If you wanted to, you could dig deeper than simply having faith in the experts. With religious faith, you can't dig deeper. It says it's true, and ... that's it. You can't ask how it knows these things to be true, or how you could go about verifying them.

If you don't want to bother digging beneath the surface, that is your choice. But the big difference between religion and science is that with science, there is something beneath the surface if you decide to dig. With religion, there's nothing. Once you get past "it's true because some guy said so", there's literally nothing more. The entire edifice of religion is "it's true because some guy said so". With science, it only appears that way if you're too lazy or disinterested to find out more.

[Lagmonster]

It's unfortunately true that a lot of people will have to trust that scientists, engineers, and physicians know what they're doing, because they have either not the time or the ability to understand some of the concepts involved.

The difference between scientists and priests, however, is that even someone who is incapable of understanding advanced science or mathematics can be shown how the scientific method is valid. Even if you can't understand the evidence, you should be able to understand that "it's fact because I believe it/Joe says it" is inferior to "it's fact because we can consistently observe it/test it". In short, scientists warrant acceptance because of the superiority of their methods.

[open_sketchbook]

@Darth Wong
I'm not that stupid, I look into how scientists come to the conclusions they do. The problem I have is that a lot of things that are generally accepted seem to leave more questions then answers. The thing I keep coming back to is planck's constant; an absurdly large number of times per second, the universe blinks out of existence and is replaced with a new one, slightly changed? I know how that conclusion was arrived at, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

[General Zod]

@Darth Wong
I'm not that stupid, I look into how scientists come to the conclusions they do. The problem I have is that a lot of things that are generally accepted seem to leave more questions then answers. The thing I keep coming back to is planck's constant; an absurdly large number of times per second, the universe blinks out of existence and is replaced with a new one, slightly changed? I know how that conclusion was arrived at, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

That just means you don't properly understand how it works, in the same way most 60 year olds don't understand how email works. It doesn't mean that faith is required.

[Feil]

However, I personally can't verify anything. While I certainly know more about, say, physics than your average joe, I can only repeat what I've read and assume it to be true. And outside of theoretical mathematics we can't verify anything we can't see with an electron microscope. Wouldn't a certain belief in those things be a form of faith?

Yes, it's irrational, and yes, it's foolish. Accepting what you can't personally verify is absolutely necessary and there are very good rational reasons for why you can do so and to what extent you should do so, but it looks to me like you haven't even looked into what those reasons are. I propose the following: in stead of asking yourself whether you have faith like those rotten unscientific faithful people, work out in your head the answers to the following questions: Why do I accept the conclusions of the scientific community? In what way should I use my rationality to evaluate what I read? Who can be trusted, why, and how far?

Once you have the answers to those, you won't need faith in the irrational, religious sense.

[Darth Wong]

@Darth Wong
I'm not that stupid, I look into how scientists come to the conclusions they do. The problem I have is that a lot of things that are generally accepted seem to leave more questions then answers.

How do you define "leave more questions than answers?" If the model is consistent and accurately predicts empirical observation, then it works. Are you suggesting that if something bothers you on an intuitive level, that constitutes "leaving more questions than answers?" Or are you suggesting that the old adage "it takes a lot of study to understand how little you know" is actually a weakness of the discipline of study rather than a failure on your part to continue advancing your level of knowledge?

[open_sketchbook]

I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm a goddamn idiot.

Please lock.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I've never really been solid about my scientific believes; for a very long time I described myself as a deist out of uncertainty and the more I learn scientifically the more that label seems to fit my views. I know all this makes me an idiot, but does believing in scientific concepts while not truly understanding them all make me a hypocrite as well?

Not really. Scientific concepts have empirical evidence behind them, and have been quantified into theories which make testable predictions and produce consistent results. Many other people have already 'done the homework' for you, so you just need to understand that the science exists, and if it's backed by experimental evidence producing repeatable results, then it is sound. Unlike religion, where the only thing you have is "because someone said so!" Religion makes no testable predictions and has no empirical data. All you have are prophecies and "well, something freaky happened, but it happened A Long Time Agotm, and we don't get why, so the gods/a wizard did it!"

To take a more practical example . . . how much do you understand about the workings of your computer? Would you know what I was talking about if I mentioned the concept of semaphores for synchronizing processes in the operating system? Or the difference between stack memory and heap memory? Or how a transistor works, and how they're chained together to form the logic gates and other components required to implement the assorted state machines which make up your computer's CPU? Unless you happen to be a electrical or computer engineer you're probably going 'Eh? WTF?' Yet, your computer still works, in spite of the fact that you have no intimate knowledge of the requirements of engineering one, or the quantum physics which dictates its ultimate operation.

That's science for you. Science allows for engineering, which produces something that you can hold in your hand and say 'Aha! If the science behind this wasn't sound, then this gadget would not be able to work at all.' As has been said, the chain from physics to your computer is documented and annotated, if you wish to dig deeper.

[open_sketchbook]

I do my best to dig deeper, but apparently I haven't learned enough to even understand that concept. Again, I'm an idiot.

[Junghalli]

I know all this makes me an idiot, but does believing in scientific concepts while not truly understanding them all make me a hypocrite as well?

IMO you're just being silly here. People get degrees in these subjects for a reason: truly understanding them requires a great deal of specialized knowledge. It's just stupid to not accept that trained scientists are going to have a much deeper understanding of their subject than a layman such as yourself. In practical terms, you're beating yourself up for being a hypocrite because you accept the conclusions of modern science while not holding the dozens of degrees (or equivalent level of knowledge) you'd need to really fact-check those conclusions for yourself.

You accept the conclusions of modern science over those of religion because you know science operates on a rigorous procedure of observation and experimentation, while religion operates on a procedure of making stuff up and mindlessly repeating what others have said. You don't need to have an exhaustive knowledge of modern science to tell which one a rational person would consider more trustworthy.

[Eulogy]

It's like this.

Some guy comes along and says that ice is made by fairies. Another guy comes along and says that ice is what water turns into when it gets cold enough. People will be inclined to believe the latter because he can prove his claim by simply getting some water cold enough, but all the former has to go on is his assertion. It's not as if he can just phone up some fairies and ask them to freeze some water as a demonstration for skeptics.

The second guy can repeat his claim multiple times; but it's not just that. Other people can test his claim by taking some water from one of their own sources and freezing it. The first guy only has his say so, and his skeptics can't test his claim since they are not fairies. Hell they don't know if fairies exist!

Darth Wong has said that science exists to describe the universe, and that means that scientific principles are universal. It doesn't matter if Planet X or Planet D has the water freezing experiment done on it; what matters is that the same process, under the some conditions, yields the same results.

[Solauren]

Let me put it to you this way;

You are currently using a piece of technology created, and working on, scientific facts and discoveries.

Please tell me what Religion has created lately.

[open_sketchbook]

I'm not arguing that religion is better than science; it's moronic. I was trying to determine what makes science anything but a matter of faith to somebody who doesn't completely understand it.

[Khaat]

what makes science anything but a matter of faith to somebody who doesn't completely understand it

Unless you are in a vegetative state (and even then, but you won't notice) your very existence is an ongoing exercise in the sciences of the natural world. Your waking existence repeatedly tests and retests the world with the basic philosophy of science:is it reproducible? is it predictable?

Whether you understand how a rubber ball is made, you can experience a rubber ball and its properties to be predictable. On a very basic level, you are scientifically examining the rubber ball. Repeat for every other level of the physical universe.

"Faith" as you have put it, is taking a subject on the authority of another with no independent means of verification. You can't do that with the natural world, with science, as you have intimate interaction with the natural, even beyond your understanding. While many of faith have displayed scientific ignorance, presence of scientific ignorance does not mean presence of faith.

[General Zod]

I'm not arguing that religion is better than science; it's moronic. I was trying to determine what makes science anything but a matter of faith to somebody who doesn't completely understand it.

If it can't be disproven, then it's probably safe to say it's not a very sound scientific principle. Most legitimate scientific theories include ways they can be falsified and is completely independent on whether or not the layman understands the finer points.

[TithonusSyndrome]

It's enough for any one person to understand the scientific method and the fact that there's nothing more reliable in terms of determining how natural phenomena occurs. They don't need to read the abstract of the paper or whatever, only that it's being carried out with the principles of science in mind.

Mind you, there are a lot of stoned slackers and what have you that don't even understand that; that's why they probably say things like "science and religion are equally valid" or "science, religion and art are all expressions of the same fundamental truth of the universe".

[Wyrm]

I'm not arguing that religion is better than science; it's moronic. I was trying to determine what makes science anything but a matter of faith to somebody who doesn't completely understand it.

Basically? Science works. If it weren't for science, we'd be eking out a miserable existence in squalor, plague, and hunger. Even the cathedrals, the ultimate expression of man's faith, were built on scientific principles: just the practice of starting with the foundation and ending with the roof when erecting a building is based on the very simple observation that doing it in the reverse order doesn't work very well.

The insanely better performance of science is reason enough to trust in science more than religion. It's already delivered you so much in tangible benefits, that the ephemeral benefits promised (and not delivered) by religion pales in comparison.

[Singular Intellect]

Like Wong said, the difference between faith and science is empirically verifable evidence and reasoning.

Belief is only needed for actual faith; in the scientific field, faith is as useful as the smell of a fart.

[Darth Wong]

Even if one absolutely insists on comparing faith in science to faith in God, they would still not be on the same level. Even if one is so lazy that he has blind faith in science rather than understanding of the method, at least he knows for a fact that science actually exists, which is more than we can say for God.

Science: Known to exist, willingly subjects itself to testing, and does not claim to be infallible.
God: NOT known to exist, NOT subject to testing, yet fanboys claim he is infallible.

Even without bothering to learn anything else, this comparison does not look good for the God fanboys. Even if you must treat science as a criminal suspect, at least it's willing to subject itself to lie detector and DNA tests. If we treat God as a criminal suspect, he won't show up for the tests, we can't figure out where to serve the summons, and we don't even know for sure that he's real.

[Singular Intellect]

If we treat God as a criminal suspect, he won't show up for the tests, we can't figure out where to serve the summons, and we don't even know for sure that he's real.

Oh, this brings up an awesome idea. I'll have to look into writing up a plausible sounding document charging God with criminal activities, with the bible as the key evidence.

Mind you, that effort would probably result in a book in itself, and I'm not sure if it hasn't already been done anyhow.

Still rather amusing concept though.

[Eulogy]

You know, you don't quite think about it but now Darth Wong is completely accurate about god and his fanboys. Fanboys are in fact the perfect term for them, but unlike many other fanboys they actually wield considerable power.

It'd be like Star Wars fanboys suddenly getting lightsabers and various psychic abilities, but the power such an event implies has already been granted and most heavily abused by the bible fandom.

Religion: the only genre that has lots of people dying for and because of it.