hugo@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Hugo) (05/30/85)
OK, on faith in science:
First, let me say that I am in no way in favor of "creation science" or
whatever gobbly gook you want to call it. I think it is unscientific, and
further, has no real support going for it in the real world. But that's
for another post, maybe.
However, there have been a series of posts lately speaking about FAITH in
science versus FAITH in religon. Ernest Hua continually asserts that no
faith is needed in science. He claims that scientific thought is based on
objectivity, observation and logic. BUT, how do you know that observation,
and objectivity lead you to TRUTH, or anything like the truth?
For example, if we were to perform a simple experiment, say, to determine
whether the sun would rise every day, what would we do? Well, we go out and
look this morning, and hey, the sun rose. Then, we go out and look the next
morning, and hey, the sun rose. In fact, every time we go out and look, the
sun rises in the morning. Wow. Can we conclude that the sun will rise
tomorrow? Well, the scientist would of course say yes. But HOW does he
come to this conclusion? What logical basis is there for concluding that
the sun will rise? Can you find it?
A long time ago, a philosopher named Hume came up with this problem. The
problem of INDUCTION. Science, as we all know, (since Newton anyway),
relies on induction in its quest for the "truth". We see it everywhere.
For example, Newton saw that the his laws of gravity seemed to hold on the
earth, and on the moon, and around the solar system, so he makes an
inductive leap and says, "here we have the UNIVERSAL law of gravitation."
How can he make this leap? He can't, but he did, and it worked. In fact,
it seems that induction does work well, seeing where science has gone to
these days, but you have to believe in it to do science. And HERE is where
faith in science is. Faith in science is faith in the fact that induction
works, and that you can really determine how nature works through
observation. In fact, even to believe that induction works because it
always has involves believing in induction. Hence, there seems no way
around it.
Well, I leave you now to ponder this problem, and I myself conclude that
sure, science involves faith, but it still works better than creationism.
Pete
--
ARPA: hugo@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa BELL:412-681-7431
UUCP: ...!{ucbvax,ihnp4,cmucspt}!hugo@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa
USPS: 5170 Beeler St., Pittsburgh PA 15213
Funny Quote: "Everyone is trying, to get to a bar,
the name of the bar, the bar is called Heaven."
- Talking Headspadraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (05/31/85)
> A long time ago, a philosopher named Hume came up with this problem. The > problem of INDUCTION. Science, as we all know, (since Newton anyway), > relies on induction in its quest for the "truth". We see it everywhere. > For example, Newton saw that the his laws of gravity seemed to hold on the > earth, and on the moon, and around the solar system, so he makes an > inductive leap and says, "here we have the UNIVERSAL law of gravitation." > How can he make this leap? He can't, but he did, and it worked. In fact, > it seems that induction does work well, seeing where science has gone to > these days, but you have to believe in it to do science. And HERE is where > faith in science is. Faith in science is faith in the fact that induction > works, and that you can really determine how nature works through > observation. In fact, even to believe that induction works because it > always has involves believing in induction. Hence, there seems no way > around it. > > Pete You have correctly identified induction as being crucial to science. That scientists accept induction as a working hypothesis, on the basis of experience goes without question, however it is seriously inaccurate to confuse this with the religious concept of faith, which involves accepting something as being true without being able to substantiate it in an objective fashion. Now I know that the scientist cannot verify induction, but the practice of adopting it as a working hypothesis gains reliability each time it is invoked successfully. Religious faith, on the other hand, requires acceptance of something without regard as to whether it can be demonstrated to be true, or not. This kind of attitude is very far removed from the adopting of a hypothesis that is based on observation, which is the case with science. Padraig Houlahan.