The debate "Faith is the base of science" was started by
March 25, 2017, 8:46 am.
By the way, M3phisto is disagreeing with this statement.
11 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 13 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
M3phisto posted 5 arguments, Ematio posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 6 arguments, M3phisto posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Ematio, neveralone, sabrina, thereal, makson, redstar and 5 visitors agree.
M3phisto, debater123, braymus17, Thepanther, Jericho, castor and 7 visitors disagree.
I can accept your distinction between faith and belief. although faith is a form of belief, just a much stronger one.
but with science, there are facts and solid evidence. no learned person would ever declare it ultimate truth, but it's definitely the best guess we have. regardless of what deity or lack thereof we find in the end, the vague details of the creation process happened as we have found it.
unless God is deceptive.
in that case screw everything, ignorance is all we have.
A belief is like a form, a shape of wood planks in which we have to bring some cement (facts and proof) to make it solid. Science is the big house we built so far. The really big foundations of the house have now so much stability that its impossible to contest them. (Like 4+2=6)
But Nemiroff, i might agree that i somehow misinterpreted faith.
By definition, faith is something in which you belive whitout needing proof of logic. Is like beliving that somewhere in your ''house'' there is a ''wall'' shape, and you have faith in it so hard that for you, it becomes a real wall. You can even lay on it even though it may not be there.
We even behave like it is there and live our life differently than people who dont share our belief.
This is true faith. True faith then means jumping directly to the truth whitout reasoning or facts. Then it is not compatible with my explanations.
I replace my 'faith' by 'belief'. Faith is something of much greather power and importance. Faith is actually accepting something as an universal truth whitout knowing for sure if its true or not because there is no facts or logic to make it solid. This is really a strong concept.
Belief is much lesser. Belief can easily change, it is never absolute, belief is actually saying ''i dont have enough facts to solidify my wall, but i am looking for some more to check if its true or not''. Its basically having the shape of the wall but admitting that maybe its not true.
if you want to reduce the definition down to something so meaningless, then sure I can accept that. however, the second the button doesn't work, I abandon my "faith" in it and realize it's broken and cross when safe.
Are you willing to then accept that same definition for your faith in God? is it as insignificant and unworthy of consideration as my so called faith in technology working? are you willing to accept that all believes, no matter how trivial or fleeting, equate to faith?
The logic flow is, "If I push this button, then the light will turn on" It's likely that it will based upon prior experiences, which have built your faith in that button. The same way you start a car. You've used it so much that you have faith in it that it will start up again.
We have faith in everything. Just because we have faith doesn't mean you have to actively think about it every day. When you push a crosswalk button, you don't think to yourself, "I have faith that this crosswalk button will work" You have faith in it, but aren't actively thinking about it. Faith is trust
indeed, what great human discovery didn't start with inspiration and a belief it will work. well some happened by curiousity. and a few by accident. but regardless of what beliefs may inspire it, they hold no sway once the information leaves that person's lab and enters the wider world.
I have never of an inherent logical flaw, I have heard of flawed logic and fallacies. I'm not sure if "More holes means less cheese." becomes "more cheese means less holes." especially if you have "the cheese has holes" which already means (assuming proportionality) more cheese = more holes.
unless you meant more cheese means less holes as a premise, not a conclusion... in which case the flaw isn't with the logic but your facts are wrong. of course your conclusion is ridiculous.
either way, logic is the the realm of philosophers. it is secondary in science. using logic means deduction, it means you don't know, it means your guessing. and educated or random, a guess is not knowing. if you use logic for your conclusion any peer reviewer can logically argue an alternative conclusion and your theory will be dismissed. the evidence must be conclusive, iron clad, and obvious. it's like a court, with an insane standard.
is relative truth synonymous with deep belief? like identical?
I think the term your using came from sociology or psychology to explain people's behaviors related to their "relative truth".
but such a term in the realm of politics is as dangerous as "alternative facts"
like that you got you facts straight, you're a good debater.
Relative truth is one person's truth. That may or may not be universal. But in his mind, behavior and perception of existence, that fact is true.
Here's another nice example of logic flaws:
The cheese has holes.
More holes means less cheese.
But more cheese means less holes.
Therefore, the more cheese you get, less cheese you get.
I know them, but if a logic is flawed then it isnt 'correct logic'. It may seem correct but it isnt. Which can create fake 'universal truths' because of the fake 'correct logic'. When people show off that logic flaws, the fake truth is destroyed.
For the abiogenese, it seemed logic. That's why they concluded on that fake truth. Until later, that truth was dismissed and considered a lie instead. But until the fake truth was discovered, people believed it, it was THEIR truth (relative truth disguised as universal). The real universal truth was not that, we only discovered it later on.
The way you see it, science is only the universal truths. I agree with you on that.
I think there is a process of an idea that becomes science. What do you think of this:
A man gets an idea. (at this point, he just belives that his idea to be true, he has a form of relative truth)
He needs to have faith in that idea in order to begin experimenting and look for proofs for it. (If he doesnt belive it to be true, he doesnt test it at all so the idea is lost)
(Logic stage begins)
Here, the man has to put faith away and only look for objective Logic elements to prove his hypothesis. (experiments, tests, statistics etc)
Once he's got a logic solid enough, and his logic is accepted by others, then it becomes science. (universal truth)
I also think you have a very wrong impression of science. science is not a belief system, it isn't an organization, and it isn't something that someone can claim to have their own "science". everyone has their own beliefs, including scientists, but that doesn't make their beliefs science. not until it has been proven and tested and becomes universal truth (with an asterisks since everything is open to reexamining).
science is 2 things.
1. a body of knowledge of what we have already discovered. which yes, requires as much faith as believing China exists without seeing it for yourself. pretty certain but never fully absolute. this can be seen as faith by those who reject science but don't bother actually doing the work to disprove it (which would totally get them as Nobel prize if they could) but this is the less important aspect of science.
2. a tool. the scientific method. the gold standard of the pursuit of knowledge. the whole point of the scientific method is to eliminate any significance of the beliefs you hold prior to the experiment. and if your beliefs screwed with the experiment, it would be found in the peer review process and dismissed.
I've never heard the convex and concave earth theories. but I can tell you that anything regarding outside of our universe is as much science as theology. if you can't measure it, observe it, and experiment on it, then it's not science. they are just speculation, more philosophy than science.
and your confusing dark matter with dark energy. dark energy is pushing the universe apart and it's not instead of the big bang, it's after the big bang, or perhaps the cause of the big bang. the big bang is pretty set, although the details are unknown, we aren't even sure it was a bang, the current belief (yes I said belief. we don't know so it isn't science) is that it was more of an inflation like a balloon than an explosion. either way dark matter and dark energy are pretty new and unknown factors. they are called dark not because of color but because we are clueless about them.
I don't understand what you mean by "relative truth." Something is either true or not. unless of course your talking about opinion, like what is funny or attractive... but that has more to do with taste than belief.
logic is no better. if you start with wrong premises you will reach wrong conclusions no matter how flawless the logic is.
the old example of:
socrates is a man
all men are mortal
therefore socrates is mortal
only works because the first 2 lines are correct. if instead I said
socrates is a man
all men are immortal
therefore socrates is immortal
the logic is flawless, but since part of the argument is nonsense, the conclusion is equally nonsense. logic is a tool, and like any tool it can be misused. Chicago has a rising crime rate.. every other big city is going down, but someone can easily point to that one statistic and make a logical argument for a police state. it's in no way based on reality... but it sounds logical. that does not make it true.
if we look at the abiogenesis. there was nothing wrong with the logic. leave some meat overnight and maggots appear out of nowhere. there are none around the mean, non under the table, non on the ceiling. what else could have happened except the maggots arose from the non living matter.
Ah you're right man. Here, let me adjust what i just said.
You're talking about universal truth. That, i know will not change, and does not require faith. It is pure logic. Once it is found and proven to be universal truth, it is all logic.
Now what about relative truth? One's truth? That, is what my equation is then.
Personal faith + logic = relative truth.
Universal truth would be something like
Initial faith + correct logic = universal truth
Universal truth only comes from correct logic.
And faith? Well, faith doesnt change the existence of the sun or the earth, we can call them whatever, they will still be there. But faith changes the way we apply science. There are so many hypothesis out there, so many people beliving different things. Some scientists say the earth is concave, some say it is convexe, some say there are an infinite number of universes, some say only ours is existent, some say the universe is expanding, some belive it is because of the big bang, other say it is because of black matter. More of them argue on the black matter existence or definition. etc etc etc
Only because there is some huge science basics that you know are truth. It does not mean that science does not require faith. All those scientists have faith in THEIR science. Until one is proven to be the TRUE one, and then, that science will become basic truth.
Initial faith + correct logic = universal truth
The logic has to be correct. Otherwise it is just a relative truth.
belief + logic is not always truth.
people believed the earth was still a long time ago. we didn't feel any motion so logic agreed. but it wasn't true.
people used to believe in abiogenesis. they saw maggots arise from dead meat and concluded simple life can come from nonlife. they had both belief and logic, but they did not have truth.
when searching for truth, belief is completely irrelevant. and logic can be deeply flawed.
also, the theory is the end result of science. not the starting point.
you start with a hypothesis, the question, and you don't have faith it will be answered, you test it. having faith in a certain conclusion has been shown to mess up experiments and lead to erroneous conclusions. scientists try to avoid that.
it doesn't matter if 6 or 8 are reversed. you can call it whatever you want. give it any symbol you want. the 6th position on the number line will always have the same value.
the same goes for all definitions. obviously someone else won't call the sun "the sun". but it will always be a giant burning ball of gas in space, regardless of the specific words used.
If you have 4 lions and 2 more come, you'll have 6 right?
That's because you belive 6 is the number of the lions. In a different society where 6 and 8 will be reversed, you'll have 8 because 8 has the value of 6 in that society.
As for theories, first you have a theory, then you begin to experiment it. But in the beginning you have just a question, a belief that this could be then answer. Until proven false or true, that theory is a belief. If proven false, the belif disappears, if proven true, the belief becomes reality because you successfuly applied logic to it.
Belief + logic = truth
Pure logic can also be truth, but that is ONLY because each of the logic links are already proven to be a truth. So you can only make a truth with other truths.
But the origin of a truth is a belief completed by logic. This is the composition of truth.
The belief is like the first step to acquire new truths.
And if you want to destroy an actual truth, you have to destroy its logic.
I don't believe I understand your argument. the presence of faith in science to me revolved around the issue that no man can effectively recreate EVERY experiment to see every theory through first hand. that would be a ridiculous task to expect from every single person.
a hypothesis has no faith involved. it is simply a question. one need not have faith in a question. a theory only requires faith if you choose to believe it without testing it. if you see if for yourself, and can rule out colleague sabotage... there is no reason beyond a reasonable doubt why it would require faith. especially after numerous repitition and extensive peer review.
as for math. I don't see how that is faith at all. sure the numbers that represent the values we created, but the actual values themselves are intrinsic. if you have 4 lions and 2 more join the bunch, I don't need to have faith to know there will be 6. I don't see how 4+2 could ever become 8 even in an unreasonable doubt.
Faith is the base of everything. Faith is expressed in science trough 'hypothesis' which then becomes 'theory'. We then choose to belive a theory and to make it progress with more 'hypothesis' revolving around it until we prove our thesis using logic and then it becomes another truth.
But logic itself is a series of linked informations that lead from A to B. In order to accept that series of links, we must have faith that each link is the truth. (We accepted math as a truth, noone could ever prove math, we just had faith that 4+2 is 6 and so on, it was the base 'hypothesis' in which we choose to have faith)
Logic is a tool for faith. Logic is what gives strength to faith until it becomes reality and isnt faith anymore.
Example: copernic and his theory of earth, he had faith the earth was turning around the sun, then he proved his faith using logic. His faith became the truth.
Newton and gravity. He had faith from the moment the apple hit his head. Then he went on to consolidate his faith with logic. Then, his faith and logic became reality.
Is truth a combination of faith and logic?
it's not faith that compels people to trust science. It's simply logic.
Does it take faith for you to believe that touching a hot surface will cause pain?
it's not faith, it's repeated experience which lets you predict events. this is the essence of science. just like you know that touching burning coal will cause pain, we know that orographic lift of moist air will produce rain.
no. I have faith my employer will pay me my salary. I have faith the police will come if i call them. I have faith that when I deposit money in a bank they will give it back when I ask for it.
society is based on faith. but faith with logic and reason underlying it.
I see faith as a complicated and wonderful procedure. Faith is simply beginnig or doing something with the strong assumption of what the outcome will be. It can also be a way to live. Living with faith.
People can have faith in their children, their mariage, their careers, their family, their state system, their education or even in themselves... everything requires faith.
Faith is omnipresent. Amazing.
But can one live a good life whitout faith?
I guess the difference would be bind faith, or highly probable.
in a way it is.
have you ever heard of the "brain in a jar" mind experiment?
or the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
no matter the evidence, there is always a what if, regardless of how unreasonable.
From your logic, faith is the base of everything?
what isn't based in faith?
from banking to love, to the next sunrise...