This is an excerpt from an article I wrote for a science mag. I thought I'd share with those who care. Questions and comments are welcome. Trolling is expected as predicted by the SSTheory (ref: http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=8581802&postcount=159 )
The English word faith is dated from 1200–50, from the Latin fidem, or fidēs, meaning trust.
Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. The word "faith" can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general. As with "trust", faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes, and is used conversely for a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."
Informal usage of the word "faith" can be quite broad, and may be used in place of "trust" or "belief."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
The epistemological validity of faith spans a very broad spectrum bounded on one extreme by logical positivism (that observational evidence alone, is the basis of all knowledge) and the other by fideism (that true beliefs can only arrive through faith and not reason/logic).
From my experience with the classic argument of religion vs science, I've come to find the futility in having arguments with religious and scientific fundamentalists, so I do my best to avoid them. Inspired by my daily random musings and a recent discussion I had with a religious nut-case who was adamant about the notion that the world was about 6000 years old, offering her "faith" as irreprehensible proof. Naturally, arguing from the perspective of a scientist, I offered geophysical evidence (radiometric dating) in support of the ~4.5 billion year age of the earth. As expected, the religious nut once again offered her faith as an authoritative counter. The remaining 18 seconds of the argument from that point on isn't note worthy.
Anyway, this got me to thinking, what role does faith play in the 'religious' institution of science? At this point some of you are thinking, WTF? Science is not religious in anyway! Fair enough. However, here I use the term religion in context of its etymology: religāre: re- (do over) + ligāre (to bind, tie or fasten). To re-connect our existence with our origins.
Now we all know that scientific inquiry is based on an ab initio (from first principles) hypothetico-deductive model initiated by physical observation of natural phenomena. This is the foundation of the scientific methodology. However, a very popular misconception that many people have about science is that it's "proves things". This isn't necessarily correct. Scientific inquiry proceeds by formulating a hypothesis in a form that could conceivably be falsifiedby tests on observable data. Meaning that there should be a test or experiment that you could run which contradicts the predictions of your hypothesis. This is known as falsification. (Ref: Karl Popper). That something is "falsifiable" doesn't mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. A test that doesn't contradict but supports the hypothesis, corroborates the theory.
Why is falsification necessary? Because of observer bias. This innate and inescapable bias of our intuitions and resultant beliefs lead us to observe what we expect to observe. Falsification corrects for observer bias and is one of the most effective means by which theories can be scrutinized. This natural bias is a consequence of our interaction with a society wrought with conventions and paradigms. Physicist, historian and philosopher Thomas Kuhn argued in his seminal book; On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions (a highly recommended this book for those interested in this topic) that scientists work within conceptual paradigms that strongly influences the way in which they collect and interpret data. He dispels the common myth that science "reinvents itself" in a linear progressive fashion, rather, it progresses through "paradigm shifts" initiated by "crisis" and often influenced by socio-political revolutions. he cites a laundry list of historical precedence.
OK, back to Inductive reasoning. This takes the set of empirical "facts" (e.g., recorded/analyzed data) obtained by deduction, to a general conclusion in accordance with a theory. The theory explains the relationships between the facts and allows for prediction of future knowledge. The predictive strength of the theory, its integrity so to speak, increases with the increasing number of experiments that corroborate it. Essentially, scientific inquiry must be based on gathering physically observable, empirical and measurable evidence which are then subject to specific principles of logical reasoning. Other tools used improve the integrity of science include statistics, controls, parsimony (Occam's Razor), repeatability and reproducibility (R&R), etc.
Now remember, these empirical "facts" are originally derived, ab inito, from a set of axioms or postulates. For example, the fundamental laws in physics and axiomatic systems in mathematics like the Dedekind–Peano axioms for the natural numbers. These are considered to be self-evident knowledge that don't only require no proof, but can not even be proven in principle. Sound familiar?
OK, herein lies the "Problem of Induction". That the knowledge obtained from the logic of inductive reasoning is limited by;
1) generalizations based on the observables "at the time"
and
2) presuppositions - that the sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past. Like, the laws of physics will never change. Generalizations and presuppositions upon which the laws of physics are based. Some measure of faith in these foundational laws is required for the development and progression of science. Let's revisit the definition of faith again with specific reference to the bolded:
"The confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. The word "faith" can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general. As with "trust", faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes, and is used conversely for a belief not resting on logical proof or material evidence."
Let's break this down:
The first part: "faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes"
Knowledge obtained through science is based on the reduction of information from observed phenomena after which the 'bits' of information are studied - their interactions and intra-actions - and then reassembled to better understand the mechanisms of the system. Or they're reorganized to make a new system. The reductionism of scientific inquiry is firmly rooted in our causal perception of nature. Our [unconscious] "faith" in the unbreakable chain of "cause and effect".
The second part: "a belief not resting on logical proof or material evidence."
Again, knowledge obtained from science doesn't proceed through "proof" of a proposition, hypothesis or theory but rather through its falsification. For example, the proposition that "God does not exists" (and hypothesis surrounding it) is unfalsifiable because no amount of [scientific] observation or experimentation can ever demonstrate its falsehood: that God exists. Consequently, this is not considered a credible scientific proposition. This, however, is not to be confused with the logical fallacy that often emerges from arguments surrounding the above proposition. The classic argumentum ad ignorantiam: The "Argument from Ignorance". "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". "The God-of-the-gaps" argument. That the absence of a scientific explanation for a supernatural phenomenon does not constitute evidence for the existence of God.
Conversely, it's also logically incorrect to assume that because a theory explains all known relevant phenomena, it must be correct. The Big Bang Theory for example. There are no known physically observable phenomena that are inconsistent with the Big Bang theory. This by no means constitutes definitive proof that the universe actually did originate with the Big Bang. The possibility of some yet-to-be-observed phenomenon that's inconsistent with the Big Bang Theory lingers. Another notable logical fallacy is "The Argument from personal incredulity": "just because I personally don't believe it, it's not true.", or, "that's what everyone agrees it is so it must be true."
This brand of logical fallacy, very common amongst religious fundamentalists, is often disguised as faith. Recall the argument about the age of the earth.
The English word faith is dated from 1200–50, from the Latin fidem, or fidēs, meaning trust.
Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. The word "faith" can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general. As with "trust", faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes, and is used conversely for a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."
Informal usage of the word "faith" can be quite broad, and may be used in place of "trust" or "belief."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
The epistemological validity of faith spans a very broad spectrum bounded on one extreme by logical positivism (that observational evidence alone, is the basis of all knowledge) and the other by fideism (that true beliefs can only arrive through faith and not reason/logic).
From my experience with the classic argument of religion vs science, I've come to find the futility in having arguments with religious and scientific fundamentalists, so I do my best to avoid them. Inspired by my daily random musings and a recent discussion I had with a religious nut-case who was adamant about the notion that the world was about 6000 years old, offering her "faith" as irreprehensible proof. Naturally, arguing from the perspective of a scientist, I offered geophysical evidence (radiometric dating) in support of the ~4.5 billion year age of the earth. As expected, the religious nut once again offered her faith as an authoritative counter. The remaining 18 seconds of the argument from that point on isn't note worthy.
Anyway, this got me to thinking, what role does faith play in the 'religious' institution of science? At this point some of you are thinking, WTF? Science is not religious in anyway! Fair enough. However, here I use the term religion in context of its etymology: religāre: re- (do over) + ligāre (to bind, tie or fasten). To re-connect our existence with our origins.
Now we all know that scientific inquiry is based on an ab initio (from first principles) hypothetico-deductive model initiated by physical observation of natural phenomena. This is the foundation of the scientific methodology. However, a very popular misconception that many people have about science is that it's "proves things". This isn't necessarily correct. Scientific inquiry proceeds by formulating a hypothesis in a form that could conceivably be falsifiedby tests on observable data. Meaning that there should be a test or experiment that you could run which contradicts the predictions of your hypothesis. This is known as falsification. (Ref: Karl Popper). That something is "falsifiable" doesn't mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. A test that doesn't contradict but supports the hypothesis, corroborates the theory.
Why is falsification necessary? Because of observer bias. This innate and inescapable bias of our intuitions and resultant beliefs lead us to observe what we expect to observe. Falsification corrects for observer bias and is one of the most effective means by which theories can be scrutinized. This natural bias is a consequence of our interaction with a society wrought with conventions and paradigms. Physicist, historian and philosopher Thomas Kuhn argued in his seminal book; On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions (a highly recommended this book for those interested in this topic) that scientists work within conceptual paradigms that strongly influences the way in which they collect and interpret data. He dispels the common myth that science "reinvents itself" in a linear progressive fashion, rather, it progresses through "paradigm shifts" initiated by "crisis" and often influenced by socio-political revolutions. he cites a laundry list of historical precedence.
OK, back to Inductive reasoning. This takes the set of empirical "facts" (e.g., recorded/analyzed data) obtained by deduction, to a general conclusion in accordance with a theory. The theory explains the relationships between the facts and allows for prediction of future knowledge. The predictive strength of the theory, its integrity so to speak, increases with the increasing number of experiments that corroborate it. Essentially, scientific inquiry must be based on gathering physically observable, empirical and measurable evidence which are then subject to specific principles of logical reasoning. Other tools used improve the integrity of science include statistics, controls, parsimony (Occam's Razor), repeatability and reproducibility (R&R), etc.
Now remember, these empirical "facts" are originally derived, ab inito, from a set of axioms or postulates. For example, the fundamental laws in physics and axiomatic systems in mathematics like the Dedekind–Peano axioms for the natural numbers. These are considered to be self-evident knowledge that don't only require no proof, but can not even be proven in principle. Sound familiar?
OK, herein lies the "Problem of Induction". That the knowledge obtained from the logic of inductive reasoning is limited by;
1) generalizations based on the observables "at the time"
and
2) presuppositions - that the sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past. Like, the laws of physics will never change. Generalizations and presuppositions upon which the laws of physics are based. Some measure of faith in these foundational laws is required for the development and progression of science. Let's revisit the definition of faith again with specific reference to the bolded:
"The confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. The word "faith" can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general. As with "trust", faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes, and is used conversely for a belief not resting on logical proof or material evidence."
Let's break this down:
The first part: "faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes"
Knowledge obtained through science is based on the reduction of information from observed phenomena after which the 'bits' of information are studied - their interactions and intra-actions - and then reassembled to better understand the mechanisms of the system. Or they're reorganized to make a new system. The reductionism of scientific inquiry is firmly rooted in our causal perception of nature. Our [unconscious] "faith" in the unbreakable chain of "cause and effect".
The second part: "a belief not resting on logical proof or material evidence."
Again, knowledge obtained from science doesn't proceed through "proof" of a proposition, hypothesis or theory but rather through its falsification. For example, the proposition that "God does not exists" (and hypothesis surrounding it) is unfalsifiable because no amount of [scientific] observation or experimentation can ever demonstrate its falsehood: that God exists. Consequently, this is not considered a credible scientific proposition. This, however, is not to be confused with the logical fallacy that often emerges from arguments surrounding the above proposition. The classic argumentum ad ignorantiam: The "Argument from Ignorance". "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". "The God-of-the-gaps" argument. That the absence of a scientific explanation for a supernatural phenomenon does not constitute evidence for the existence of God.
Conversely, it's also logically incorrect to assume that because a theory explains all known relevant phenomena, it must be correct. The Big Bang Theory for example. There are no known physically observable phenomena that are inconsistent with the Big Bang theory. This by no means constitutes definitive proof that the universe actually did originate with the Big Bang. The possibility of some yet-to-be-observed phenomenon that's inconsistent with the Big Bang Theory lingers. Another notable logical fallacy is "The Argument from personal incredulity": "just because I personally don't believe it, it's not true.", or, "that's what everyone agrees it is so it must be true."
This brand of logical fallacy, very common amongst religious fundamentalists, is often disguised as faith. Recall the argument about the age of the earth.
Last edited:
