I think you may be talking about events at a later stage of the development of the idea; I was talking about the very early, “inspirational” stages.
Shouldn't physics theories declaring themselves to be unprovable be dismissed out of hand? Faith|Sci
Are you perhaps confused in thinking that I was/am confused?:
—————
No, it was the core of the question (which see)–although the question was also posed as an invitation for philosophy and physics dudes (and perhaps people who think about faith and religion) to put forth their test cases.
I’m enjoying the thread. I must say, however, that the paucity of thought given to the phenomenon of faith and belief–in many belief systems, physics among them, and indeed, of quite starkly distinct belief systems of interpretation of quantum reality–is honestly surprising to me.
The knee-jerk reaction to the words “faith” and “religion” (attacks on “dogma,” “because the prophets say so”) is intellectually impoverished. I do believe that many a Nobelist, just like millennia of scholars and philosophers of religion (“believing” churchgoers or not) have given the matter more attention than anyone on this board–and some of them must have intelligence, right? (Cough, dice god, cough.)
The leap that the expression of faith/root of religion (channeling and structuring of that faith) is an obviously anti-science, anti-intellectual, troglodytic atavism–“creationism” lurking at every shadow–is, at heart, a belief system. One worth examining.
Thank you, I guess.
So, which theories are unprovable in principle? (I’m using that term very loosely here.) There are certainly unprovable speculations in physics, but not theories.
Perhaps you are thinking of the many books which use quantum physics as the springboard to philosophical speculations, which range from the interest to the batshit insane. But in physics the meaning of it all is unimportant compared to the predictions you can make with a theory. Bullshitting at a bar isn’t physics.
Creationism is anti-science because it has its conclusions already set, and rejects any evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, the Dalai Lama said that if Buddhism conflicts with science, Buddhism must change. That is not anti-science.
But surely you’ve seen people here say that faith is so important that God does not give us evidence of his existence because it would undermine our faith. Any “faith” is science (by someone who has a clue) is provisional. If you had no faith that your ideas are correct, you’d not go out and ask for money to explore them. On the other hand, if the data comes in that they are not correct, and you keep them, you look like a fool. See Fred Hoyle. Really, if people used the same methods of evaluating religion as they do science, any religion this side of deism would be as dead as phlogiston.
Remember, any scientific theory is subject to change since we recognize that previous work can be mistaken, can suffer from inadequate measurements, is supported by a limited set of potentially flawed experiments, and might be just the best that people then can come up with. Religion on the other hand is supposed to begin with revelations from he or it who knows all. Logically religions shouldn’t be designing a God Mark III, though they all do.
I stopped believing when I discovered that the stories of the origin of the Bible I was told in Hebrew School were bogus. But I had it easy - my paycheck didn’t depend on believing. Those who quit when their paycheck does have real guts.
I’m confused…
But the history of faith is that it leads to such widely diverse conclusions. It leads to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Alaskan native tribal animism, etc. It doesn’t lead to any answers that aren’t contradicted by someone else’s faith. It isn’t even as subjective as the Blind Men and the Elephant: it’s the Blind Men and a story someone made up about the Elephant…or Centaur…or Roc…or Phoenix. Even people with perfectly good eyesight can’t tell you what they’re looking at, since faith-based entities have an historical tendency to be invisible.
One man has faith in the soul…but he can’t show me his. Another man believes in heaven…but can’t lead me to it. Faith is all well and good – when it is well-behaved – let’s agree to leave out inquisitions and pogroms – but it doesn’t stand up to inquiry very well. It’s circular. “I believe because I was taught to believe by others who believe.” Okay…
It’s like solipsism. Irrefutable, but so what? It doesn’t lead anywhere.
If faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains…why are the mountains still pretty much where they were a thousand years ago? I want the Jungfrau in my back yard. (Hey, Walt Disney came close, so I can still have hope, right?)
Leo, I’d guess the problem lies in the way you phrased your OP. Yes, this is an ancient argument and been chewed over endlessly and fruitlessly, although the arguments have become more sophisticated over the years. Because of that nobody says anything remotely like “But the theories I am thinking of, which say “the math works, so it has a right to be …” (what–”explored?”)–or even “be considered correct”: are these no different than fath/the root of religion?" That’s sheer nonsense and more than a little reminiscent of Creationist idiocies. Whatever the appropriate balance between faith and science, the proper stance toward physical and mathematical theories is to reject evaluating them through faith. And nobody in the conversation except Creationists suggest that scientists’ acceptance of math as a way of understanding the universe is the equivalent of faith.
You can try rearguing this old chestnut but your start was unpromising.
There’s nothing to study about “faith and belief” besides the nature and causes defective reasoning involved, and most psychologists fear the hostility they’ll inevitably get from the believers. After all, if there’s one thing they can be certain of it’s that whatever the religious believe, it will be shown to be wrong. It always is after all.
Faith and religion have intellectual impoverishment as a central feature. They are about not thinking, about not knowing.
It’s just acknowledging the obvious. Insisting that they aren’t; now that’s a “belief system”.
(Bolding mine)
I agree wholeheartedly with this. I don’t believe my start was “unpromising,” only insofar as it apparently has been misread, no doubt do to the way I negotiated posting a thread topic in the telegraphese appropriate for a man typing on an iPad for a bulletin board.
The suggestion that (or that I believe, which is of lesser import) theories, models, etc. be evaluated through faith was not in the OP (analyses of the text of the OP are silly here).
I merely put on the table a topic on the ontological questions that have been given a certain sharpening, again, as they do at certain glorious times in the history of physics–paradigm shifts, as they have been called. But our paradigms in certain aspects at this moment in quantum mechanics are not, truth be told, entirely paradigmatic.
The ideas of the reality of “what’s there”–physic’s Jovean purview–have been rattled with quantum entanglement, for example. This is not and never has been an easily understood phenomenon–not in its demonstrability, or in its mathematical modeling or further physical experiment and application and repeatability–I hope my scientific cred is hereby established.
More than occasionally physicists step up to the plate. More than occasionally physicists do not. Newton passed on gravity.
I do not, as many seem to want in this thread and outside, look for an answer to those type of questions. That is stupid. As is predicating the pursuit of the profession on that question–although some non-stupid people have done so without great harm to their careers (a cough is tickling my throat here).
It is (merely?) on the nature of the ground upon which a physicist, were he so minded, finds of interest.
In another thread that started just about the same time, MikeS gave a link to Scientific Realism at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It’s a broad overview of the controversies and the philosophical approaches. You might try reading it and using it to focus your questions.
In the many previous threads that touched on this issues, physicists make the point that working physicists almost never bother with looking at their work with an eye to the various philosophies proposed. For most it’s uninteresting and gets them nowhere, since no two people ever agree on the fine details and even if they did it would advance their work not at all. Some do because some people like arguing about abstractions. That’s fine - but it’s not physics. You can’t say anything about physics or physicists by whether they they play this game anymore than you can if they play baseball or the frigideira (a Brazilian instrument that Richard Feynman played).
I have been aware of it for quite a while, and thank you for pointing it out for the benefit of observers.
By now I must note explicitly the patronization, however, in this post and in your previous comments in this thread (only), which is unfortunate.
All we can do is respond to the actual words you write. Your OP was a hopeless mess. When you wrote a more serious post I responded more seriously. I still can’t figure out what level you want to have this discussion on, or even exactly what you want it to be about. You’re responsible for clarifying them. I’m not interested in guessing. I’ll happily drop out of this thread now.
Ciao 
See you in GQ