I have very little doubt that Einstein’s theories of relativity are accurate descriptions of the way the world works. I am confident that if I were to go up in a space ship and approach the speed of light, and then return, the wristwatch on my arm would lag significantly behind the wall clock on my bedroom.
I am confident in the Big Bang theory and what I’ve been told about quantum mechanics. I believe the Universe is expanding, and that the speed of light in a vacuum cannot be exceeded by anything with mass.
But I have never read any of the scientific papers on which these theories are based; and, having never really mastered differential calculus, I probably wouldn’t understand very much of them. I’ve never performed any relevant experiments.
Instead, I base my beliefs on what I’ve read and seen on TV, as these mediums have brought me the words of Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan and of course Albert Einstein. If you challenged any of my above beliefs, I could only do so through appeal to authority. I have no other way of defending my belief in the Big Bang other than, that’s what wiser men than me have said.
Unless you actually are a physicist and are fully capable of understanding the math involved, I imagine the same more or less holds for you as well.
So, on a personal level, how are such beliefs any different than espousal of (say) transubstantiation, reincarnation or karma?
The difference is that, in theory, you could get up to speed on all of the mathematics necessary to understand those papers. And indeed, individuals who are well versed in the mathematics overwhelmingly vouch for its correctness (you can always find people on the fringe, of any topic). Einstein’s conclusions are also, in theory, testable. It is this last point that takes the issue of relativity into the realm of science and not spirituality.
Contrast this with transubstantiation. That’s easy to test. Have a priest say the consecrating words over the communion chalice and test the chemical composition of the contents. It will either have the characteristics of wine (or grape juice) or blood. Those who would support transubstantiation might counter that Jesus’ blood is undetectable by our temporal methods, but then we’re into a whole celestial-teapot, invisible-pink-unicorn debate.
If I affirm my belief in, say, Einstein’s theory I am affirming a belief in something which, in principle, can be experimentally verified. I am taking it as a matter of faith that it has been experimentally verified, but I am not asserting that something unverifiable is objectively true…
But if I affirm by belief in redemption or transubstantiation (or, for that matter, truth, justice and the American way, or human rights) I am affirming my belief in something which is not susceptible of experimental verification.
Ironically, though, my faith in transubstantiation may rest less on an appeal to authority than my faith in Einstein’s theory does, and more on my personal preference – I like the concept, I wish it to be valid, I find it meaningful, it accords with the way I wish to l live, etc. We’re in the realm of philosophy here, not science.
In other words, I suspect we rely on an appeal to authority to sustain our faith in scientific propositions rather more than we do to sustain our faith in theological or philosophical propositions.
Not just testable, but tested. Einstein became famous not when the theories were published, but when it was shown that Mercury was where he said it would be, not where classical mechanics said it would be. There have been countless other tests.
What a layman can do is to look up the predictions of a theory, see that they were made before an experiment, and then see that the experiment didn’t falsify the theory.
Experimental results are so important that Penzias and Wilson got a Nobel Prize for accidentally confirming the existence of cosmic background radiation, predicted by the Big Bang.
When believers in transubstantiation predict things that can be experimentally verified, I might stop thinking its a joke.
Only if we’re too lazy to understand the evidence for scientific theories, which may involve understanding the concepts but which doesn’t involve much math.
One thing about science - whether we like it or not makes no difference. As Rabi said about the muon “who ordered this?”
No. There is a difference between understanding a scientific proposition which in the case of many propositions is something attainable to most of us with a little mental application, and knowing that a scientific proposition is true, which in many cases requires conducting or observing an appropriate experiment.
In the case of most of us, for a wide range of scientific propositions, we accept on authority that the propositions have been emperically verified, and our belief in the truth of the propositions, as opposed to our ability to understand them, rests on that appeal to authority.
(I am not asserting that this appeal to authority is unreasonable, unsound or imprudent. I am merely observing that it is widely made.)
One scientists love figuring things out. If relativity was wrong, and they had evidence then they’d be falling over themselves to publish the evidence.
Two, scientists, as a group, don’t seem that pissed. I know I’d be super pissed if I spent all the necessary time needed to learn to understand relativity, only to find out it was a crock, and I’d tell everyone exactly how pissed I was too.
Three, I’m doing science all that time. The computer I’m typing this on uses quantum mechanics. If we didn’t understand quantum mechanics we’d have never been able to build it. Also relativistic processes are observable even for laymen. Sat internet has a ping rate of over a second because the geosynchronous satellite is so far away. Biological scientific knowledge is demonstrated by the advanced state of medicine.
The point I’m making is modern society is built on applied science. If the science was wrong then we’re either damn lucky and made things work for the wrong reasons, or science actually does describe the world on some level.
The cool thing is there might other levels, like quantum gravity.
“Quantum gravity” would still be subject to scientific research, right? I find those other levels really cool also. Maybe sometime these amazing levels of science will have things in common with my “great cosmic glue” ideas about a higher power.
I’m not suggesting that faith in science in general, or in the scientific process, rests on appeal to authority. My point is that, for most people, belief in the truth of most specific scientific propositions rests on an appeal to authority. By and large, a perfectly reasonable, rational, prudent appeal to authority, but an appeal to authority nonetheless.
The OP asks whether this is the case, and also asks whether, if so, this is any different to faith in a theological proposition such as the reality of transubstantiation or karma.
To which I answer, yes, belief in scientific propositions can and in many circumstances does rest on an appeal to authority.
But this doesn’t mean it’s completely the same as religious faith resting on an appeal to authority. Given a scientific proposition which is in principle empirically verifiable, we accept on the authority of others that it has in fact been empirically verified. This not quite the same as, given a theological proposition is which not empirically verifiable, accepting on the authority of others that it is true.
The other point to bear in mind is that the OP’s second question assumes that theological propositions are, by and large, accepted on authority. While this may be true of specific people who believe specific propositions, I don’t think it is generally true of theological propositions as such. We generally adopt philosophical positions because they appeal to us, not because we are instructed to. My suspicion is that most people rely on appeals to authority in relation to accepting scientific propositions rather more than they do in relation to accepting theological propositions.
I think that people should question science more; not because science is wrong but because I think it’s good to always have a healthy sense of skepticism and to want to have something proven to you before you believe it to be true. I think the skeptics who are so ruthlessly (and justifiably) skeptical of religion should also be questioning of science and they should therefore learn more about science.
Some of you probably remember my threads from about a year back, worried about the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. I was afraid that it was going to create a black hole and destroy the world. Eventually I wound up taking an elementary physics class at IU (which also incorporated some discussion of philosophy) taught by a very smart professor who was actually part of the LHC project at CERN - in fact, he taught several of the lectures via a webcam, from the LHC itself, when he was in Switzerland for a week! When I learned more about the physics behind the project, I became less suspicious that it was going to destroy us all. But I’m glad that I questioned it initially because I would think that anyone with any sense would want to question such a project after it was hyped up by sensationalistic journalism as having such destructive potential.
Because the belief systems that push the latter have a history of always being wrong, and have not a bit of evidence for what they say, and seldom if ever hold together logically. Because science has proven again and again that it actually works, while religion has done the opposite. Penicillin can save you, prayer cannot. We live in a world filled with evidence for the validity of science, and empty of a shred of evidence for the validity of religion.
And science unlike religion is something that CAN be checked by other people. If Doctor Fraud claims to have invented perpetual motion, Professor Jones can check his results and prove him wrong. “You must have faith!” isn’t an allowed counterclaim.
I disagree. Unless the believer in question makes a particular religious belief up personally out of whole cloth, he is accepting that belief on authority. Because that’s all religion has; no facts, no evidence, not even logical consistency; nothing that can be checked.
This isn’t a “is science better than religion” debate, though I can see you’re raring to go on that particular topic. I wonder why there has never ever been a thread on this subject in GD before? Hey, go be a pioneer!
While you’re doing that, I hope I’m making myself clear: my question is, from Joe Schmoe liberal arts graduate’s perspective, is there any difference in his personal belief in relativity versus personal belief in any doctrine of organized religion? From what I can see, the grounds for belief are pretty much the same: somebody he trusts told him it is so.
Sure, you can say he ought to listen to Stephen Hawking 'cause he got the mad science skillz, and not listen to Pope Benedict cause he’s totally teh suxxor – but isn’t that still just an argument over which authority he ought to be appealing to?
No. The suggestion that people must either make up their own religious beliefs, or accept the beliefs of others on authority does not stand up to examination. There are other obvious possibilities.
True, theological propositions are not supported by evidence or by anything that can be checked, but isn’t this true of all philosophical propositions? Where is the “evidence . . . that can be checked” which supports my belief in a woman’s right to choose, or the immorality of torture, or the virtues of republican democracy, or the importance of respect for others, or the goodness of love, or the desireablity of human solidarity? None of these proposistions are original; are they all, therefore, accepted on authority? For that matter, are the beliefs and values which underlied the philosophy of science also accepted on authority?
Where a proposition is not scientific, it does not weaken the proposition to point out that it cannot be supported by scientific means. That’s simply tautologous. You seems to be asserting, though, that if a proposition is not scentific then it can only be affirmed by an appeal to authority. I can see no reason at all why this should be so.
Does Pope Benedict contradict anything Stephen Hawkings says? And, if so, what?
You will often see “appeal to authority” in lists of logical fallacies but, actually, an appeal to authority is not necessarily fallacious. If you have an eminent, relevant and reliable authority, an appeal to it is actually pretty powerful. For example, I might appeal to the Oxford English Dictionary in support of some proposition about how a particular word is used in British English; that’s perfectly reasonable, and not at all fallacious.
So, when it comes to science, appeal to eminent, relevant, reliable authority is perfectly reasonable, and most of us do it all the time.
It doesn’t follow that every appeal to authority in every field of enquiry is equally reasonable. If Joe Schmoe the liberal arts graduate believes that the world was created in six days of twenty-four hours about six thousand years ago because “the Bible says so” , I would say that, yes, this is an appeal to authority but, no, this does not mean that his grounds for believing this are “pretty much the same” as his grounds for believing, e.g., that the sun is at the centre of the solar system because he was taught this in grade school and every astronomy textbook he has ever consulted has confirmed this. Both these beliefs may rest on appeals to authority, but that it pretty much where the similarity ends. The authorities to which he appeals are not equally eminent, relevant and reliable in relation to the propositions that he is arguing, and his appeals are not equally reasonable, prudent, defensible or compelling.
Nonsense. “Joe Schmoe” is surrounded with proof that science works. And there’s no proof at all for religion. It doesn’t matter if he hasn’t a clue who the authorities in science and religion ARE, much less trusts them. It doesn’t matter if Pope Benedict is “teh suxxor” or a saint; he is a religious authority and therefore speaking for a baseless belief system that is reliably wrong. Because being baseless and wrong is a basic part of what makes a belief system a religion in the first place; the label “religion” doesn’t get slapped on a belief system otherwise.
They don’t need to be; they are not claims of fact, but moral assertions. For them, “It’s true because that’s the way we want the world to work” is a reasonable justification. Theology on the other hand makes all sorts of claims about objective reality; Heaven and God and transubstantiation are either real or they are not.
No; because they work.
No, I’m asserting that RELIGION has nothing else. That it’s baseless; evidence free. It’s not simply not “supported by scientific means”; it’s not supported by anything at all. It’s just asserted to be so.
Nothing that I’m aware of offhand. But for argument’s sake, let’s say Pope Benedict strongly claims that chili ought to be eaten with beans, whereas Stephen Hawking is horrified at the idea and says chili ought to be eaten with crackers, at most; never beans.
Now chili cooking is obviously outside both PB’s and SH’s respective fields of expertise (AFAIK). Neither one has any more valid opinion about chili than UDS or Der Trihs.
But as Joe Blow Liberal Arts Graduate, do I necessarily discern this? I’ve been sort of inculcated with the idea that Stephen Hawking is the Authority. Authority about what? Science, of course. And chili. Whoa, how do you know this? Stephen Hawking said so. But just because a dude’s an expert in physics, that doesn’t mean he knows necessarily knows anything about chili. Not according to Stephen Hawking.
Perhaps I’m not entirely certain of my own point here. But one thing I can say is, the thing I find a bit disturbing is that while “appeal to authority” isn’t necessarily a logical fallacy, how do judge when it isn’t, if that’s your default mechanism for understanding the world?
What exactly do you mean by “science works”? How do his surroundings “prove” it?
And how do you know that Joe Schmoe doesn’t individually have experiences that convince him that (say) reincarnation is real? He may not be able to objectively prove that he remembers a past life . . . but neither can you objectively prove to him that the universe is expanding. The best you can do is say “scientists have been right about A and B and C, so you need to take it on their authority that they’re also right about D”.
D could be the question of an expanding universe. It could also be a question of whether to put beans in chili.
“Is the authority an authority on the subject at hand ?” and “Does the belief system/institution/he himself have a history of being right?” come to mind. Are you always going to be right to trust Stephen Hawking about physics ? No; he can be wrong and you can misinterpret him. But he’s more likely to be right about physics than any religious leader is about heaven or God; religion unlike science has a history of never being right.
He lives in a world filled with devices invented using science that work according to scientific principles. He doesn’t live in a world where people fly to China by praying hard, he lives in a world where people fly there in an airplane. He lives in a world where science works, in public and all over the place.
I don’t; but that just means he’s a gullible fool, it doesn’t mean that religion is equally as plausible as science.
Which by itself puts science on a far higher plane than religion, since religion isn’t right about A and B and C; so there’s no reason to think that it’s right about D either.
This isn’t anything other than the standard “Science isn’t perfect, therefore religion is just as good!” fallacy. Science is the best tool we have for discovering the nature of reality, with a record that proves it; religion is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to discovering reality, also with a record that proves it.