From my POV, yes it is belief.
You can cut down 20, 20,000, or 2x10^17 trees, and observe they all fall to the ground. Assuming that the next tree – the one you did not cut down – will do the same, is belief. Consistency can not be proved, only disproved. And, since it cannot be proved, it’s a hypothesis.
Now, it’s a rational, useful belief. This is the reason it’s so successful. I will find it hard to believe many people (religious fanatics included) will not believe it. But it’s a belief system nonetheless.
One clarification is due, though. I do not claim that scientific theories are based on belief. But the root, underlying assumption of the scientific method (and of everyday life, for that matter), is based on an improvable belief.
[Analogy warning]
Look, for example, at the Euclidian Geometry. Very useful, very reliable. But still, it’s based on axioms. Change the axioms, get a non-Euclidian geometry. Just as valid, although maybe not as useful (at least for everyday uses).
[/Analogy]
I could come up with a different axiom for science. I could claim that everything (micro as well as macro) behaves in a totally random manner. Not very useful, that, but valid all the same. But why would I? Our present method (including core belief) works.
Or even a belief operating system, like you have on a computer - a system that allows you to operate every other piece of software bouncing around in your head.
You believe in cause and effect. You believe in the evidence of your senses. You believe in the reliability of your memory. You believe that the world does not behave in an arbitrary, random manner. You believe in a reality outside of yourself.
Thanks, Apos (and others as well)! That is exactly what I wish I had said.
Namely, it’s impossible to function at any level of normalcy without relying heavily on the scientific process, whether we actively use it or not.
(Puzzler, you could claim that everything is random, but could you possibly act in such a way as to deny any expectation of repetition for anything?)
So, is that paradigm really ‘belief’ in the same sense that a person ‘believes’ in god(s)?
(Much as VarlosZ claimed in the other thread that some were picking nits in regards to the vocabulary used, I think it’s very clear that when a person says “I believe in God,” most of the time he or she means something different than when s/he says, “I believe I will have a cup of tea,” or, “I believe the sun will come up tomorrow morning.”)
John Corrado, your point is well taken with regards to science at a higher level. But, the difference, in my opinion, is that when I listen to scientists explain things that I don’t know much (or anything) about, I don’t have to have faith in the science, I just have to have faith that the scientists aren’t lying to us when they communicate to the general public. If they use good methodology, a methodology that I’ve accepted, then, because of the very nature of that methodology, I can accept what they say at face value, completely understanding that it might not be right. And, if it’s not correct, then someone will figure that out as well, using the exact same tools.
With regards to belief in god(s) or the divine, it’s not the methodology but the conclusions themselves that are the focus. It’s not how you believe in god, but that you believe in god. There is the real difference.
Loopydude, that’s true, and I think that’s what VarlosZ was trying to get at. But, while it’s a fun mental exercise, denying an objective reality doesn’t leave a person anywhere to go as far as answering questions to anything.
VarlosZ, the question is not about ‘better.’ Better for whom and for what purpose? Your second attempt, “is science the same kind of thing as religion?” is more what I was after. I’d point up to what I wrote to John Corrado in this post as part of my answer. I don’t think they are the same at all, as one (religion) starts with a conclusion and takes input and fits it in (or dismisses it) to support the pre-conceived conclusion. The other (science) is a method which, in and of itself, has no pre-conceived conclusions. Individuals might, but science itself does not.
diggleblop, I think the problem is not that people look to science as the ‘answer,’ but that it’s not an answer at all. It’s a way to question, and all it asks is that we accept the conclusions we reach when we use it, until we are shown otherwise. And nameless said it well, that very few people (if any) believe that there is nothing about the universe that science won’t tell us. This doesn’t mean that these things fall outside of a physical, non super-natural world, it only means that there may be no way to observe or understand these things. All science ‘asks’ us to do in these cases is to not come to conclusions when we have no way to arrive at them based on available evidence.
Ah, and Voyager has also stated something that I’ve been getting at. An individual may hold wrong conclusions, but science, by its nature, does not.
AHunter3:
What mainstream religion preaches “there might not be a god, we just don’t know”?
Sure, I agree. But at the same time - it’s hard for me not to see a parallel to medeval peasants listening to bishops discuss theology and assuming that there must be something to it - why else would smart people be focused upon it, and so able to discuss it in nuance?
With regards to belief in god(s) or the divine, it’s not the methodology but the conclusions themselves that are the focus. It’s not how you believe in god, but that you believe in god. There is the real difference.
Incorrect. Science can hold very wrong conclusions, because we haven’t yet found out what proves something different as correct. In the 1910’s and 1920’s, science held that personality traits were hereditary- if your father was a thief, then you were going to be a thief as well. Up until the 1940’s, it held that epilepsy was a sign of mental weakness and a genetic disposition for retardation. And how long did we believe there were canals on Mars until better telescopes told us differently?
Maybe today our misconceptions are about much more esoteric matters - how the universe was created, how it works at levels too small or big to be measured, etc.- but sometimes science is about postulating something and accepting that postulate until it is disproven later.
I guess for clarity’s sake, “science” can’t hold any viewpoint because it’s a methodology. A body of scholars and associated persons who utilize a scientific mode of inquiry can certainly, and do often, accept erroneous conclusions derived from flawed or incomplete use of the scientific method.
I do, to a degree. You may be interested to know that quantum mechanics had pretty much ruled out our universe being both local and causal. So cause and effect are belief – and not necessarily a valid one, at that.
You may want to consult Descartes on that
Personally, I don’t. But my memory really sucks, so I’m no example
That’s the basic “faith” I was talking about.
Once more, feel free to consult Descartes. Pay particular attention to his ideas about an evil demon.
Of course not. When I walk, I assume that putting one leg in front of the other will get me forward, because “that’s the way it always works”. This is the way we’re “programmed”. And I don’t try to claim it is wrong.
In a sense, yes. The difference is in degree.
When I read the bible about the crossing of the red sea (for example), I will ask myself: did it really happen? And if yes, how? Maybe there was an earthquake that caused a tsunami?
When an orthodox Jew will read the same passage he will probably think “God made a miracle. Blessed be his name”.
The difference is he believes in god and in miracles.
I see a miracle as a phenomenon that deviates significantly from our knowledge of the world. I don’t believe it’s possible, so I’ll look for alternative explanations. But note the use of the word “believe” in there.
Oh, scientists will lie if they think they can get away with it, and it will help them. Trust me, I was there.
You’d have to take me on faith, though
I’ve seen several writers distinguish between science, which is a way of learning about the world we live in and can be practiced by anyone regardless of their religious or philosophical outlook, and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism]scientism*, which is a belief system or ideology asserting something along the lines of “if science can’t study something, it doesn’t exist.”
Yeah, “scientism” is a much better way of referring to the belief that use of the scientific method is the best way to investigate the universe and everything in it.
I might fall into this trap, I don’t know. Mostly I just can’t see how any other method allows honest people, even with contradictory biases, to investigate reality and achieve a single and valid consensus. Not that it always does, of course, but it’s been shown to be possible. Of course, there are ecumenical movements and syncretic faiths whose members claim there is one true faith, the rudiments of which they employ, in the hope of achieving greater understanding. They claim, therefore, this is a singlular consensus about the existence of an ultimate truth, but unless they make no assertions whatsoever the nature of this truth, I fail to see how they’ve achieved any real consensus at all. There seem always to be elements of dogma that are mutually exclusive, unless they simply converge on a religious monoculture with what is essentially just another set of dogmatic principles upon which they now all agree for reasons the skeptic cannot penetrate. I leave open the possibility using science is not the only way to answer answerable questions, but if anyone has come up with a better one, I just don’t know what it is.
If you’re going to try to argue something logically, use some logic. Telling us not to accept the word of scientists doesn’t mean we should alternatively take the word of you, some anonymous schmo on a message board who says “trust me”.
No, I’d think that this would reach theory status. In science theories are not proved as they are in math.
The big difference that all scientific belief is tentative. They are abandoned, sometimes quickly, when there is a lack of support. I’d suspect pretty much all religious belief would be abandoned if examined with the same mindset as scientific beliefs are. (Expected answer: but they’re different!) You surely don’t claim that the belief of the inerrantists is the same sort of thing as scientific belief, do you?
An excellent example. Note how mathematicians realized that Euclidean geometry was based on axioms, and that non-Euclidean geometry, based on different axioms, was just as valid. No belief there at all. The question was the utility of it, and, as is often the case, the universe fooled us and told us that bizarre areas of mathematics did indeed have some relation to physical reality.
It would be interesting to construct several religious systems built on axioms, and see if believers considered them all equally valid, unless they led to contradictions or directly contradicted observed reality. Religious predictions contradicting reality hasn’t seemed to stop too many people so far, though.
You’re forgetting the testable part. You could claim that, but when you test your claim against observations you’ll find that it isn’t true. Now, if you use belief(religion) this doesn’t bother you, but if you use belief(science) you throw your hypothesis in the garbage.
Science is not about belief. Yes, since we cannot know everything, we are required to put a certain amount of trust and faith into those who came before and developed the theories. But we also know that those theories are only valid so long as no evidence to the contrary is discovered. Not so with religeon.
Science and religeon are two separate things and have should have no bearing on each other. Even Stephen Hawkings said, when asked about whether he believed in God or not, something like “I can only explain HOW the universe works. I can’t explain WHY.”
So how about this? Science won’t tell you how to pray and religeon won’t tell you how to design your skyscrapers, suspension bridges and medical treatments.
