# Science and Faith **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 10, 2002, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300 "2002-08-10T19:36:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2002, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300/81 "2002-08-16T23:15:51Z")
I said this: > [@](#): > > Mathematics is an operation, a procedure. To clarify, that wasn’t meant to be definitional in nature, but rather to comment along what I should hope to be parallel lines that we cannot seperate _calculating_ from _mathematics_ just like we cannot seperate _judgement_ from _science_, as if science and math were somehow holy or pure (regardless of whether they spoke truth or spoke at all) but we were flawed in our application of it. Without the calculation and methods of calculation, we couldn’t have math. Without the normative acts of scientists, we couldn’t have science. ---
**Author:** ![JS\_Princeton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JS\_Princeton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JS_Princeton)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2002, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300/82 "2002-08-17T01:26:06Z")
> [@](#): > > For don’t I perform mathematical calculations? You say, “You not only very sure that 12 times twelve is 144, you can rely on it.” So I don’t need to double-check calculations? Couldn’t I be mistaken? “Oh, I seem to have scribbled a 2 here instead of a 1 [in front of the 44]!” Or, “Oh, I seem to have added instead of multiplied!” If I am certain of this, why would I ever check calculations? Couldn’t my mathematical ability be in doubt the same way our theory of radiation is in doubt? Human error is always a concern. This is not an inherent problem in science or in mathematics, only in the practice of these things. > [@](#): > > If the step, “Get up from balance after measuring” is not science, then how am I scientifically measuring the property of the molecule? Because we make decisions about what to research. Because we are human. It sounds to me like you’re blaming the world for its ever-willingness to present itself with banal tasks to do. That’s a common complaint, but inescapable. If you wish to ask why the world is this way, that’s more a subject for philosophy than science. > [@](#): > > Of course they do! Who would accept this statement as a scientific finding: “Well, it is very likely that this compound had weight to it, and that it has some properties.” Could I get a pHD in physics for a one-sentence thesis that gravity probably exists? You’re conflating the accidents of science with the substance. The scientific community is what confers PhDs. Plenty of scientific endeavor is done by countless minions who do not make profound inroads beyond stepping away from the balance. They do not receive the accolades and PhDs, but they still are doing science. > [@](#): > > The marks on the ruler are arbitrary, they could have been closer together or farther apart, they could have been randomly placed, but it must be possible for me to confirm this ruler in some context before I may proceed. This just proves my point that it doesn’t matter HOW you do science. We could just as easily do science in a base hex numbering system. > [@](#): > > Let us suppose you want to test whether a microwave will heat water. And further, let us suppose that I know microwaves heat water, but I want to see how much. Do we not perform the exact same actions? We place the cup in, set the timer, remove the cup, measure the temperature. If science says nothing is proved, then I have not done science. What have I done? Without quantifying the answer, simply stating that microwaves heat water isn’t science. Measuring how much microwaves heat water is a scientific observation. Saying microwaves heat water is as meaningless as telling a child that “energy makes a bus go.” Without a definition of quantification, these concepts are simply aesthetic or meaningless. > [@](#): > > What has proved the former? Why is proof impossible in the latter? First of all, you have to get beyond human error. We know it exists, and that’s that. If you believe it is impossible to get beyond human error than the discussion is over. We’re all just walking around deluding ourselves. Mathematics is deduced from postulates. This is the way it is done. Science is induced from observation. They are different beasts entirely. You don’t think we can separate mathematics from calculating. It seems you haven’t talked to many mathematicians then. There are mathematicians that are interested in Applied Mathematics, but there are others which could care less about such things and simply start with postulates and theorems and run with them until their heads get sore. There are also theorists in the scientific community who do the same thing, but they are ultimately held accountable to the observationalists and experimenters as nature itself is the postulate of science. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2002, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300/83 "2002-08-17T02:57:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Mathematics is deduced from postulates. This is the way it is done. Science is induced from observation. They are different beasts entirely. I am not aware of how to do, learn, teach, or exemplify mathematics without observation. > [@](#): > > It sounds to me like you’re blaming the world for its ever-willingness to present itself with banal tasks to do. I want to blame anyone who has a concept of science that doesn’t entail what we actually do. For example: “_This is not an inherent problem in science or in mathematics, only in the practice of these things._” Yes, good is possible, even though we are born with original sin. Or, knowledge of platonic universals is possible, even though we live in a world of tawdry impressions. Or… shall I go on? > [@](#): > > If you wish to ask why the world is this way, that’s more a subject for philosophy than science. Science doesn’t answer why the curtain flows in when I am taking a shower? > [@](#): > > [regarding the arbitrary nature of measurement systems] This just proves my point that it doesn’t matter HOW you do science. We could just as easily do science in a base hex numbering system. Oh, I agree we could… So long as we all agree to use _this_ system. > [@](#): > > First of all, you have to get beyond human error. We know it exists, and that’s that. HA! I am sorry, but this makes me grin from ear to ear. I can confidently say that I know human error exists, I have seen it, and it fits my conception of reality, the same way I know microwaves heat water, and the same way I know atoms exist, and so on and so forth. But I am not the one claiming that science doesn’t prove anything. > [@](#): > > There are mathematicians that are interested in Applied Mathematics, but there are others which could care less about such things and simply start with postulates and theorems and run with them until their heads get sore. I see your misconcpetion of my phrasing, then. Of course, D[sub]x[/sub]x[sup]2[/sup] = 2x is as much of a calculation as 12 X 12. Which is to say, there is this procedure for this behavior, and so on. > [@](#): > > Without quantifying the answer, simply stating that microwaves heat water isn’t science. Strange, that. Two questions. First, if it isn’t science, would you permit me to say that you know it? Second, if it isn’t science because of quantification, then we must start to reconsider taxonomy. And at any rate, the example can easily be remedied to include quantification. Say, that the microwave set to this value of time will heat water some number of degrees. Whatever. I am not interested in the actual experiment demonstrated but rather in the notion of whether I may do science without the notion that science never proves anything. Because, you know, it is damned irritating to hear people say that in one thread, a thread like this, and then to hear them in another thread demand a demonstration of some crackpot theory. Which is to say: what is that going to prove? I mean, why even ask? For consider the once-thought-to-be-true proposition that the sun revolves around the earth. Now we say: the earth revolves around the sun. And I am to reject the former an accept the latter. But on what grounds? Of couse, if we can’t prove one proposition is true, then we can’t prove another proposition is false (else science would be proving things all the time, contrary to popular assertsions). By any conception of “proof” that I have, someone out there has proven that the earth revolves around the sun, and I know that, given the same tools they had, that I would come to the same conclusion. By any conception of “proof” that I have, someone out there has proven that the cardinality of prime numbers is aleph-null, and I know that given the same practice with symbol-manipulation that I would come to the same conclusion (and, in this case, I really have). … So math is a deductive system. Let us suppose this is so (though I strenuously disagree). How do I learn how to operate with numbers without inductive experience? For example, consider the series: 1, 2, 3, 4, … Of course, you may formalize this in sigma notation. But will you say you learned how to count from sigma notation, or from recognizing characteristic patterns among several (though not an infinite or in any sense “complete”) number of examples from teachers or parents? Or perhaps you might comment that you didn’t really _know_ this series until the formal presentation of sigma notation after a torturous trip through the axiomatic foundations of math? Let us suppose the latter. Now, I never went through the axiomatic foundations for math (but, by hypothesis, you have). I begin to write the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 down as you begin to write the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 down. Can anyone tell us to stop and declare which one of us knows the series? And what sort of judgement was that? A non-mathematical one? Then why, for instance, should I accept any proof by mathematical induction? Shouldn’t I demand to see the series continued through to infinity? But of course, given our (only very probable) limited life span, demanding such a thing is impossible. So I am only very sure that the number representing the sequence of partial sums after 10001 is 10002? (the matter is further complicated by the fact that the _n_th term of the sequence of partial sums is also the answer! I mean, how aren’t we testing the same thing _twice_ by asking someone to write out the sequence of partial sums here? And, even to use sigma notation, \*don’t you already have to know how to count???) On one hand, I can conceive of the possibility that our theories are wrong and thus am told to say that theories are never proven from incomplete induction. On the other hand, I clearly learn how to operate mathematically from incomplete induction, and am told that I can trust mathematics as a deductive system implicitly, barring human error (whatever that means, I don’t care to argue that point). Two cases of incomlete induction, and two entirely dissimilar results. The matter is only complicated by the intricate link between math and science. And many consider, contrary to you of course, that math is a science. But perhaps not in the sense you propose here, which is still unclear to me. We may mark our rulers in any way, _but we must mark our rulers_, and more importantly, _we must agree on ruler-markings_. And, of course, this means there must be a method for establishing agreement (which, by all rights, is quantifiable) (and though I am not entirely clear on whether all quantifiable concerns can be scientifically investigated, though I would say they may be). But let this one man, this solitary stranger in a strange land, mark his ruler in some unique fashion, and develop a script in his head that only he can read. Furthermore, though he can speak and understand every language on earth, he refuses to speak in any of them, and will not teach you how to read his script. You seem to have an uncanny ability to tell science apart from non-science, so I am going to introduce you to this unique individual. Furthermore, you’ve mentioned that all this prescriptive behavior is not necessary. Can you describe what this man could do that would cause you to say, “There. He has done some real science there and is not just some crackpot.” Of course, such a comment cannot be a scientific one (to you) since there is no quantification. But still, you have, over this debate, given several particular examples of an ability to detect science from non-science, and you have asserted that the prescriptive qualities we so often find are not necessary for science. So here is our strange man you cannot communicate with because he refuses to do so. From the top: > [@](#): > > Human error is always a concern. This is not an inherent problem in science or in mathematics, only in the practice of these things. But not their _creation_? > [@](#): > > Plenty of scientific endeavor is done by countless minions who do not make profound inroads beyond stepping away from the balance. Well, shall we say, “…beyond those small scientific endeavors after making a non-scientific decision to step away from the balance.” Could we scientifically investigate, assign probability, as to when a person should step away from a balance to achieve a specific statistical tolerance for error? But doesn’t “error” require a standard on which to judge? And if those standards aren’t science, then science isn’t even axiomatic, arbitrary… it isn’t _anything_. If science is a _behavior_, a _method_, then of course it doesn’t matter what I believe. And I feel comfortable believing that science proves things until it finds otherwise, in which case I believe that science has _disproven_ the previous theory (or, proven that it was false to be perfectly clear). But then, couldn’t we all run around and say that science proved such-and-such? Well, imagine we all _did_ say that, every last one of us. The entire human race: wrong. Of course this hypothetical human race has to be wrong, because science can’t prove anything, and that isn’t changed merely by _saying_ otherwise. So then, perhaps the question, “Then how do we know the opposite?” has meaning? by which I mean, “How do we know that science doesn’t prove anything?” Of course that can’t be a scientific observation. Which is to say, “Perhaps _all_ of science is up for grabs, _except this proposition_ [that science never proves anything].” But of course, the truth and falsity of a proposition isn’t a measurement along some quantifiable axis like a ruler or thermometer, so no surprise. Can I infer from the modified microwave experiment above (where specific measurements are theorized and tested) that a microwave does, in fact (or is very likely to be a fact), heat water, but that _science_ doesn’t allow this inference? Or is it that science doesn’t allow _any_ inference? But that last question can’t be “yes” because you’ve said, “_Science is induced from observation._” So there are rules for inference? ---
**Author:** ![JS\_Princeton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JS\_Princeton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JS_Princeton)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2002, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300/84 "2002-08-17T04:17:06Z")
> [@](#): > > I can confidently say that I know human error exists, I have seen it, and it fits my conception of reality, the same way I know microwaves heat water, and the same way I know atoms exist, and so on and so forth. But I am not the one claiming that science doesn’t prove anything. :Sigh: Science doesn’t prove that there is human error. Why we make mistakes is an interesting subject, but ultimately the measurements that are made have to be meticulously qaulified. You paint with too wide a brush, my friend. You are trying to get me to contradict myself, I guess. I’m about ready to drop this game. > [@](#): > > First, if it isn’t science, would you permit me to say that you know it? Second, if it isn’t science because of quantification, then we must start to reconsider taxonomy. Now you’re getting it! These are both fabulous questions. What we know and what is observed are different things. It is one of the fundamental questions of philosophy. Furthermore, there are any number of scientists who will tell you that the more scientific an endeavor is, the more it becomes quantifiable. “There are two kinds of sciences,” it is said, “physics and stamp collecting.” In a very real sense, taxonomy is quantifiable (despite the fact that it hasn’t been done very well.) We are just now, in the last 20 years, becoming able to describe HOW exactly it is quantifiable using computers. It is funny that we can intuit things that are obvious to us but not easy to teach a computer to recognize. Taxonomy is the same thing. At its heart it is quantifiable. Now, don’t ask me WHY the universe is this way. I’ll be candid and tell you I just don’t know. > [@](#): > > Because, you know, it is damned irritating to hear people say that in one thread, a thread like this, and then to hear them in another thread demand a demonstration of some crackpot theory. Which is to say: what is that going to prove? I mean, why even ask? Ouch. I guess I deserve that, but the “Is Physics _Terrifically_ Wrong Thread” is not about science, per se, as it is more about the Scientific Community. I have made this distinction before, and I will continue to make it here. While I may act like an angry despot when it comes to physics, I am very conservative when it comes to what pure science actually is. Others may disagree with me, that’s their wager. I think, though, I have demonstrated my case well enough in this thread. > [@](#): > > For consider the once-thought-to-be-true proposition that the sun revolves around the earth. Now we say: the earth revolves around the sun. And I am to reject the former an accept the latter. But on what grounds? Of couse, if we can’t prove one proposition is true, then we can’t prove another proposition is false (else science would be proving things all the time, contrary to popular assertsions). Simply on an appeal to the way induction works. You can be a [geocentricist](http://www.geocentricity.com/) if you wish, but you are standing on falsified evidence. This is the way science proves itself, by maintaining a theory that stands up to all previous observations. > [@](#): > > How do I learn how to operate with numbers without inductive experience? For example, consider the series:1, 2, 3, 4, … Which is a _sequence_, not a series, but in any case… > [@](#): > > Of course, you may formalize this in sigma notation. But will you say you learned how to count from sigma notation, or from recognizing characteristic patterns among several (though not an infinite or in any sense"complete") number of examples from teachers or parents? It isn’t formalized using notation, it is formalized by appealing to logical rigour. Formalization is exactly what made Bertrand Russel swoon. Teaching and learning are important because they help us to communicate with each other and share commonality. We can go into Wolf-Shapiro hypotheses, and the like, but what’s the point? You seem to be convinced that there is something arbitrary about science. That’s fine, it very well may be exceedingly arbitrary. Nevertheless, it still set up to be internally consistent. As for knowledge, no body knows what the hell that is. Plato did an okay job defining it as “justified, true belief…” but no one has come up with anything better than that rather toothless definition. I have a feeling that Ramanujan _knew_ a whole lot of mathematics without ever having been taught it. That’s pretty weird, if you ask me. I don’t know how “knowledge” is supposed to be measured, so I don’t know at what point someone _knows_ anything. I can tell you what the uncertainties are on the measured age of the universe. > [@](#): > > Then why, for instance, should I accept any proof by mathematical induction? Shouldn’t I demand to see the series continued through to infinity?On one hand, I can conceive of the possibility that our theories are wrong and thus am told to say that theories are never proven from incomplete induction. On the other hand, I clearly learn how to operate mathematically from incomplete induction, and am told that I can trust mathematics as a deductive system implicitly, barring human error (whatever that means, I don’t care to argue that point). Two cases of incomlete induction, and two entirely dissimilar results. Utter baloney. Mathematics uses deductive logic, End of story. You can look it up for yourself if you don’t believe me. Mathematical induction is actually deduction. It is not scientific induction in the least. It works because of the axiomatic description of discrete mathematics. You no more _need_ to see the continuation than one _needs_ to see every possible real number multiplied by zero is zero. Mathematics starts with postulates and moves logically from them. That is what mathematical proof means. It is NOT the same as scientific proof which relies of trials, observation, and experimentation. > [@](#): > > And many consider, contrary to you of course, that math is a science. In some sort of hierarchical scheme, some have said that mathematics is the most rigorous of the sciences. Certainly Platonists have argued mathematics is a science because they believe that mathematics is an actual part of nature and not (as opposing viewpoints would have it) a game. If it is a science, it is not a science in the sense of the scientific method (which is how I define science). > [@](#): > > Can you describe what this man could do that would cause you to say, “There. He has done some real science there and is not just some crackpot.” It is not the case that only certain folk can do science. EVERYONE can do science. If this guy wants to go out and make observations and come to a viable theory that I cannot falsify using my own observations then the guy has done science plain and simple. Of course, you seem to have the cards stacked against me as I probably will not be able to communicate with him. Perhaps I wouldn’t be able to say anything because I wouldn’t be able to understand him. That’s not the first time such a thing has happened. It was said in 1947 that there were only 12 people in the world who understood general relativity. > [@](#): > > But not their creation? Indeed, when we talk about the creation of the body of observations or the body of mathematics we are talking about something which has _theoretically_ had the human error removed from it to the best it can be removed. If there is still human error abounding, then we are, as I said before, living in a deluded world in any case and the discussion is over. > [@](#): > > Well, shall we say, “…beyond those small scientific endeavors after making a non-scientific decision to step away from the balance.” I didn’t intend to make my comment sound that way. What I was trying to say was that people do science sometimes very mundanely and NEVER GET THE OPPORTUNITY to step away from the balance. The decision to “step away from the balance” is one that is made by the individual (or the individual’s boss) and is not strictly a scientific one. However, it may be a productive one. > [@](#): > > Could we scientifically investigate, assign probability, as to when a person should step away from a balance to achieve a specific statistical tolerance for error? But doesn’t “error” require a standard on which to judge? And if those standards aren’t science, then science isn’t even axiomatic, arbitrary… it isn’t anything. ABSOLUTELY! We can assign probability and uncertainty to these endeavors. “Error” itself requires no standard, because it is axiomatic that nature follows statisical and mathematical laws. We still don’t know why this is the case, but that’s what we go on. > [@](#): > > Of course this hypothetical human race has to be wrong, because science can’t prove anything You’re going to have to define proof before we can make any headway in this area. > [@](#): > > “Perhaps all of science is up for grabs, except this proposition [that science never proves anything].” And you demonstrate in this statement why “proof” is such a tenuous thing to identify. Well done. > [@](#): > > Can I infer from the modified microwave experiment above (where specific measurements are theorized and tested) that a microwave does, in fact (or is very likely to be a fact), heat water, but that science doesn’t allow this inference? Or is it that science doesn’t allow any inference? But that last question can’t be “yes” because you’ve said, “Science is induced from observation.” So there are rules for inference? Again, science doesn’t _allow_ or _disallow_ anything. You are free to make whatever inferences you wish. You are free to scientifically test the consequences of believing in such. That’s, of course, circular reasoning. Science is pretty much wholly self-contained in that way. There’s really nothing more to be said about it. If you want to ask me, “Do I think inferred conclusions from science describes the world accurately?” I would have to say yes. But ultimately, the justification for this affirmation comes from my belief in evidence and methodology. I have no real objective way of approaching the matter. Nevertheless, it still moves. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2002, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300/85 "2002-08-17T11:06:53Z")
It’s an amazing thing to categorically declare mathematics to be a deductive process when the whole of its foundation is the Induction Axiom. ---
**Author:** ![perspective](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@perspective](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/perspective)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2002, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300/86 "2002-08-17T18:31:29Z")
Isn’t this the part where someone mentions Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2002, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300/87 "2002-08-17T18:48:05Z")
**eris** , Oh, c’mon. It is pretty clear that I am not saying that religious individuals are irrational. I am saying that they can be rational people who are religious for rational reasons (I count myself here, BTW), or irrational people who are religious for irrational reasons … and that it is irrelevant to whether or not the belief qualifies as “religion” … for science such is not the case. Reason … rationality … is a defining feature of science. And as I’ve never found you to be dumb, I am surprised to find you dumbfounded. When we investigate reality with science we are not saying that it tells us anything about what should be morally right or wrong, we are not providing a basis for morality, for values … just providing explanatory power. “The selfish gene” doesn’t say anything about right and wrong … just how things work and the mechanics of how it came to be. **perspective** , Whose common values? Why those members of the federation of societies that accept the axioms of secular society, of course. And axioms they are. “We hold these truths to be self evident …”, human rights, the rights of POWs, and so on. Of course they have been influenced by Judeo-Christianity! But one isn’t going into India to today and arguing that untouchables deserve basic human rights because of the Christian Bible, one appeals to this now more neutral secular mindset. And more and more of the world is agreeeing to accept the axioms that are its basis. Without accepting any particular religion. How they set the balance in each situation, where the fulcrum is placed, is influenced by a variety of factors … individual faith, culture, etc … but the axioms are being accepted not because God said so, but because we all seem to agree. Still looking for a defintion of religion, I am. Is democracy a religion? As to the places of induction and of deduction within Mathematics, well, in Mathematics induction is kept within its neat box. The basic postulates are generally (not always) based on induction … but all that follows is deductive (usually). And exciting areas of Mathematics are based upon deductively following out from axioms that do not follow inductive observations. In the rest of science induction and deduction have a constant interplay in the formation of knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![perspective](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@perspective](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/perspective)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2002, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300/88 "2002-08-18T08:00:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DSeid \* > **perspective** , Whose common values? Why those members of the federation of societies that accept the axioms of secular society, of course. And axioms they are. “We hold these truths to be self evident …”, human rights, the rights of POWs, and so on. Of course they have been influenced by Judeo-Christianity! But one isn’t going into India to today and arguing that untouchables deserve basic human rights because of the Christian Bible, one appeals to this now more neutral secular mindset. Secular or no, it’s a culturally specific historical accident. Science has nothing to do with it. We hold these truths to be self evident? Could you invoke faith any more obviously? The declaration of independence mentions god doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![kabloomie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/59ef9b/32.png) [@kabloomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabloomie)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2002, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300/89 "2002-08-18T14:33:27Z")
Webster’s Third New International Dictionar, Unabridged Definition of “religion” 7 a: a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness, and faith : a value held to be of supreme importance \\\ Please note that I never said anyone trusting in any scientific principles had to be a radically religious scientist, any more than everyone who take a bit of Christianity is a hard-core fundamentalist. Mixing and matching religions is all the rage. But I think everybody has a set of rules or principles or whatever that they simply will not believe is wrong. That is the core of their religion. Often it is science that people choose to accept as right, and they bend their other faiths to fit the proclamations of science. No, science does not say you should not jump off the cliff. But, when it comes down to it, nobody says you shouldn’t burn in hell. . . My complaint is not so much against direct observations as it is indirect ones, of which there are too many to count. To simply state what you have observed does not seem to me to be religious; to say why it happended is to tread upon dangerous ground. And to take your collection of observations with the relationships you _assume_ exist between them and infer this as the totality of all involved factors upon processes which you have not directly witnessed nor have fully reproduced. . . Debating things here is lots of fun, but it is way too addicting. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2002, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300/90 "2002-08-18T16:59:22Z")
**perspective** , please reread the post that you are commenting on. I never said that science provides the values basis for society, quite the opposite. Secular values, “culturally specific historical accident” though it may be, provides that basis. Religion, OTOH, historically provided explanatory power, a basis for values and thus laws, and more. (It is increasingly being left with that “more” only.) The point of the comment is to draw distinctions between the role and functions of science and religion. To help compare and contrast the nature and purpose of “faith” in religion vs. in science and both vs. secular societal values. The faith that we have in the axioms that justify values is fairly absolute, whether it is from religion or from the secular system. The faith in the axioms of science is not absolute. **kabloomie** chooses dictionary defintion #7a as his choice of a definition. By that selection _any_ belief system, means of knowledge production, or cause, can be considered a religion. Cecil practices StraightDopism, committed to combatting ignorance. Communism, democracy, PETA, and many others are “religions” to any who feel strongly about it. (And, interestingly, Christianity is not, if you really don’t care.) The definition is so broad as to have no utility. Try again. ---
**Author:** ![perspective](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@perspective](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/perspective)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2002, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300/91 "2002-08-18T18:14:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DSeid \* > **perspective** , please reread the post that you are commenting on. I never said that science provides the values basis for society, quite the opposite. Secular values, “culturally specific historical accident” though it may be, provides that basis. Well, I was taking issue with this point. > [@](#): > > In the secular world science has proven to have superior explanatory power about the observable and falsifiable. And shared secular values are providing an alternative values base to theocracy. Maybe I was reading to much into these two sentences following each other directly. It looked to me that you were saying that science with it’s superior explanatory power in the secular world was helping to provide alternative values to a theocracy. But looking back at a previous post that I _hadn’t_ responded to: > [@](#): > > It is neutral about what it cannot observe and thus has no comment about God(s). It serves no function as an ethical basis. (Shared secular values developed in recent centuries are often replacing religious justifications for codes of conduct in much of the world, but while such may be science’s sister, it is not science.) I can see that we agree on that point. Still, I don’t think it’s appropriate to say that we share those values. I don’t think they are anymore common than a preference for Rocky Road ice cream. Hardly a basis for ethics in my book. This, to me, raises important ethical questions. But I suppose it isn’t really related that directly to the direction of this thread. So I’ll drop it. Thanks for the tip.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2002, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300/92 "2002-08-18T19:39:57Z")
Well, **JS** , I didn’t want to imply that you personally made me damned irritated, but only that I really recognize that apparent disparity and I am seeking to clarify it, and for some reason (which I can allow to be a personal flaw) the clarity will not come. I think we have both said all that we can say. Perhaps you are correct that further debate will not shine any more light on the subject. I am content to let the issue drop for now. **DSied** > [@](#): > > Reason … rationality … is a defining feature of science. Well, what can I say but that I do not find this to be the case? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2002, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300/93 "2002-08-18T20:01:40Z")
Oh, and of course it is a series. Sigma from n=0 to infinity 1. Or, if you don’t prefer “1” there, you oculd of course put n-(n-1). 🙂 It is the sequence of partial sums from the series indicated above. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2002, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300/94 "2002-08-18T23:51:26Z")
Actually, **JS** , allow me to perhaps make a small point that came to me yesterday as I pondered the topic. You said that it wasn’t _science_ that allowed or caused the scientist to get up from the balance, but some appeal to other order or efficacy. But, see, it is the case that when we say a personal opinion was involved in the results of an experiment (or the conclusion drawn from them that has whatever truth-value you care to make up for assignment here) we feel that the experiment was somehow _tainted_. Which is to say, getting up from the balance at such and such a time doesn’t _taint_ the experiment in the same way other judgements do. Which of course leads me to the apprent conundrum I face. ---
**Author:** ![JS\_Princeton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JS\_Princeton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JS_Princeton)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2002, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300/95 "2002-08-19T00:35:04Z")
I think you’re on to something, **erislover**. There is ultimately no rule that tells us in science WHAT to study, measure, or observe. More often than not, the paradigm is what directs scientists in this. For this reason, the paradigmatic aspect of science is extremely interesting from an instructional standpoint. I am a fan of Kuhn (though he’s admittedly not right 100% of the time, who is?) since I believe that there’s a lot that the paradigm itself contributes to the direction of scientific discourse. It may turn out that it’s fair to say that scientists are pretty blind in the arena of deciding what measurements to make. If the paradigm is what prejudicially directs the research, there could conceivably be some areas that are thoroughly unexplored. That’s a pretty exciting concept, if you ask me. **Lib** , the Induction Axiom is an inherent property of numbers. Scientific induction is not a recognized method for proof within mathematics. If you wish me to be exact, I would say “mathematics is not based upon the _process_ of induction; it is based on the _process_ of deduction.” ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2002, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300/96 "2002-08-21T22:19:54Z")
**erl** , > [@](#): > > * * * > > ## Reason … rationality … is a defining feature of science. > > Well, what can I say but that I do not find this to be the case? Well, my turn to be dumbfounded. Care to expand? Are you trying to say that induction and statistical correlations are irrational and that only pure deductive proofs are rational? **JS** , Of course the tools available help decide what gets measured just as much as the desire to measure something helps to inspire the tool. And oh, don’t forget the Monte Carlo method before totally dismissing induction from mathematics. ---
**Author:** ![JS\_Princeton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/57b2e6/32.png) [@JS\_Princeton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JS_Princeton)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2002, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300/97 "2002-08-21T23:36:07Z")
Monte Carlo method doesn’t offer proof for anything in mathematics. It is a random walk method, so the (un)certainty threshhold is there. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2002, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300/98 "2002-08-22T01:26:40Z")
Correction noted. My mistake.Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2002, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300/99 "2002-08-22T10:28:53Z")
If reason and rationality was a defining feature of science, I would expect to find a concept of scientific proof there. Otherwise, I don’t know what you mean by reason and rationality. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2002, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300/100 "2002-08-22T13:10:40Z")
**JS** , to be perhaps even more clear, a solid distillation of my opinion: you can’t seperate the scientists from science. Secondly, there are judgments made by scientists in science which are not (it is claimed) scientific but are otherwise standard. This would be a strong scientific proof: it proved, _as much as anything can be proved_, that this way of looking at things was right (think how often we revise our model of atoms and subatomic particles, but still measure temperature in the same way). And there is some hypothetical work where the theories more or less accord but the exact details are being worked out. This would be a sort of weak proof, but we still “feel” like we’re “on the right track”. It is of no interest to me whether someone claims science does or does not prove anything. We act like it does, and that is enough for me. If you’d like, I have abot 40 pages of thought devoted roughly to this topic in MS Word format. The document is not complete, but it obviously extends the thoughts farther than they can be extended here. I’d be happy to share it with anyone. Just email me for a request, no need to even be public about it if you don’t want. **DSeid** , I still owe it to you from some time ago when I made a promise in the universals thread (I think it was there), but it is hard work to try and distill these thoughts. The math discussion is one I think I want to start a thread on soon, but my Wittgenstein thread is causing me no end of headaches already so I don’t feel prepared to broach another huge topic. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-faith/123300.md?page=6)