trc@hou5a.UUCP (Tom Craver) (01/13/84)
I would like to comment upon a fallacy that I have seen go essentially un-challenged. Personally, I find it rather saddening that no scientist made the comment rather than me, a mere programmer type. The statement has been made that science is a religion, because both science and those systems that are commonly called religions are based at the most fundamental level upon faith. This is false. Science is not based upon faith. Faith is the acceptance of the truth of an idea without evidence. Axioms are *not* accepted upon this basis. Axioms are derived by induction from observed reality, and are generally self evident to a human (EG "I exist"). (Which is not to say that a human mind cannot become so ruined by faith as to reject these things.) Hence, the axiom that nature is "regular" is based upon observing that the universe "behaves" in a manner consistent with past behavior, in a given context. Only *counter-evidence* invalidates an axiom, and if there is strong evidence in support of the axiom, the counter evidence must be equally strong in nature. (EG a second hand report that the world has suddenly become flat can be discounted, since there is strong evidence that the universe does not operate that way.) Someone is sure to say "well, you have to have faith that your axioms wont be shown to be incorrect". Not at all. One can be quite willing to accept *evidence* showing an axiom incorrect. As long as the axiom "works", no evidence will have been found (since only a failure of the axiom would be evidence against it). Hence there is no problem with using it until such an event. As soon as a real exception to the the axiom is found (IE it doesnt work), the axiom must be modified or replaced to fit the new evidence plus valid old evidence. Then the new axiom takes on the same status the old axiom held. The mere fact that an axiom *could* be found incorrect does not invalidate the idea of basing one's reasoning upon axioms. Science is based upon *axioms*, not faith. Religion is based upon faith. Evolution, as a product of science, *could* be proven incorrect. But it *would* have to be proven incorrect, because it has strong evidence, and is consistent with the axioms of science. Creationism, as a product of religion, does *not* have to be *proven* incorrect, since it has never provided strong evidence for its correctness, and because it is in opposition to well established axioms of science. In short, creationism is based upon faith and religion (which is in turn based upon faith), and cannot be considered science without first invalidating the axioms of science. Science and creationism (faith) *are* incompatible. It is *not* true that an "article of faith" (EG "God exists" or "The universe was Created") requires conclusive counter-evidence to invalidate it. Such things are based upon little or no indicative evidence, and typically are contradicted by other, stronger evidence (as is the case with evolution vs creation of life). Also, such evidence as tends to support them tends, over time, to be found explainable within the axioms of science. What saddens me about the acceptance of faith as the basis for science is that it will eventually mean the end to real science. Creationism provides a good example of how this may come about. The objective of the creationists is *not* truth, but establishing their idea of what the truth *should* be. Once creationism has achieved the sanction of good science, it will have attained its goal, so far as it is concerned with science. Hence it can turn from seeking favor with science, to inhibiting it - so that it will not have to continually sew new patches across its rotten fabric, as new (even minor) discoveries rip it wide. Faith has a more direct effect, however. Once faith becomes acceptable as a basis for "creation of hypotheses", scientists will be admitting that reason is not required to create the products of reason. Another of those products is the in-validation of a hypothesis. This will be the next to fall. The nature of faith is that it rejects the validity of evidence. Without valid evidence, nothing can be proven invalid. Hence any hypothesis can only be judged upon subjective standards - does it "feel" right or does it insult one (by contradicting one's other opinions, hence making one look bad). Tom Craver hou5a!trc
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/14/84)
The reason that other scientistics haven't made Tom Craver's claim is that we philosophers will get you for it. Oh well, here goes: Here is the claim: The statement has been made that science is a religion, because both science and those systems that are commonly called religions are based at the most fundamental level upon faith. This is false. Science is not based upon faith. He then goes on to present the classic objectivist (note -- small "o", ie not necessarily connected with Rand, though the name "Objectivism" with the big "O" didn't come from nowhere) position on knowledge. Definition: Knowledge is a true belief in the light of sufficient evidence. Okay. this is pretty basic stuff. However, there is a problem here. This very deifinition is also a belief. How do we know that it is true -- ie how do we make sure that it is knowledge, which one accepts not out of faith? the first crack is to say -- oh well, there is lots of evidence that this definition is a true belief, therefore it is knowledge. However, here you have only made the claim of consistency -- if it is a true belief then it is a true belief. If, however, it is false then all hell breaks loose. This is similar to the claim that "the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible". (Note -- it doesn't, but people say the funniest things. Assume that it did for the purpose of arguement). Okay -- have I dismissed this proof? I can do this one for hours but I don't want to beat a dead horse. The second crack is to say that certain things are obviuously true. These are called "innate ideas" and a good example is "I exist". Okay. Tom has made the secondary claim that people who claim that they don't exist have been brainwashed by religion. This is not valid, since Hume made the similar claim and he remained a sceptic on the matters of religion. So not only "religious people" have these ideas. Moreover, it is very hard to say that Tom's innate ideas are any different in kind than somebody who claims that they have the innate idea that "God exists and he is Jesus Christ my saviour". They claim that this is an innate idea. And I have no idea of knowing the true from the false (from an objective point of view). * * * * However, I think that the claim that science is a religion because it relies on faith is a silly one. Everything relies on faith, since there are always some axioms which are either innate ideas or are only true if they are true. Your only reason for making such a claim would be to promote tolerance, or to befog the issue. "Science is just based on faith, so religion is a great thing." Hmm. Somehow the people that bring this argument out of the closet tend to believe that their religion is the one big TRUTH and we had all better kowtow. They are, in effect, denying that their religion depends on faith for the purpose of the converxion argument. "I can logically prove the esistence of God" they shout -- and, of course they can, if I give them their premises. (it is a long standing joke that if you give a Jesuit his premises he can prove anything). But in any arguement of that sort I can find one or more premises that must be taken on faith. So logical arguements for the existence of God don't wash with me. Of course, a logical argument on why I should be an objectivist don't wash either. I like consistent systems, which is why objectivism holds its attractions and Christianity (which flunks for other reasons as well, as net.religion readers will know) doesn't -- for me. I like a consistent system because it is useful, according to me. Don't bother telling me that i am selfish, because I think that this is a virtue and I intend to adopt belief systems purely out of their usefulness to me. I am aware that other people may find other things useful, including having an illogical system. Poets and mystics have been known to go on about it for ages. thus this is useful to them. More power to them -- as long as they understand that just because illogic is useful to them it is not necessarily useful to me. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (01/19/84)
Tom Craver is wrong about science not depending on faith, and not for
the reasons Laura Creighton brings up. Tom could be correct IF each
scientist personally made all the observations and deductions that led
to the theories in which s/he believes. But nobody can possibly do that.
The faith on which science is based is faith in the validity of reports.
You believe that false reports will be contradicted later by other reports
that are more consistent with data from yet other experiments. The test
of your faith is not truth, but consistency. Yet the structure of science,
in the form of the range of its theories, is quite loose. We KNOW that
all our theories will sooner or later prove to be wrong in some detail.
We don't have perfect consistency. So, reports that are inconsistent
with what we think other reports imply may well prove not to be false.
They may merely tell us that our current interpretations are wrong.
Yes, science is based on faith. But it isn't faith in facts, it's
faith in the ultimate consistency of the world, if ever we could
understand it.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt