How much science we take on "faith"

by Big Dog 22 Replies latest social current

• 

  Big Dog

  No real point here, just a funny thought popped in my head as I was reading yet another thread where people were being hammered with scientific facts and theories and I was nodding my head agreeing with the rational fact based explination when a thought occured to me: I take quite a bit of science on "faith".

  What I mean is this, when I am reading the explination of particle physics, quantum mechanics, or molecular biology I have to take it on faith as I can't do the mathematical proofs and so on to verify what I am being told and I assume that is the case with most of us non-rocket scientists, and probably even many in the fields of science and technology. I like science, I enjoy reading Discovery magazine and trying to keep up on the latest techno advancements, but I realized how much of it I take on "faith" as I have no way to verify or disprove what I am being told by a scientist. I recall Einstein saying once that something like 6 people in the world truly understood the implications of his work.

  So if you want to argue "faith", I'd say that many that believe in science have just as much faith as those that believe in religion.
• 

  stillajwexelder

  The thing is though scientists have huge egos so if a scientist comes up with a theory there will always be other scientists who will peer review his/her work and would critique it heavily if wrong - so science is to a large degree self-policing
• 

  Big Dog

  Oh I agree, I don't mean to say that the equations are wrong or the theories are wrong etc. I just mean to say that for 99% of the population it still amounts to faith because only the 1% monster intellects truly understand the stuff and the rest of us have to take it on "faith" so to speak.
• 

  darkuncle29

  Whispers at Big Dog, " Shhhh, at best, you'll upset the potatoe people; at worst, you'll drop the test tube and spill the goo."

  I laugh because I have discussed this ad nauseum. I like discussing ideas, especially ones as heretical as this. PM me if you want to talk about this.
• 

  the_classicist

  The thing is though scientists have huge egos so if a scientist comes up with a theory there will always be other scientists who will peer review his/her work and would critique it heavily if wrong - so science is to a large degree self-policing

  Don't be so sure. Most of the higher level stuff can't even be done by most scientists. It reminds me of a news story a while back where a physicist got a huge grant and wrote a paper. Unfortunately, it turned out that he made the whole thing up and it took quite a while before someone realized it.
• 

  rem

  I think if you define the word "faith" that loosely then you get yourself into all sorts of trouble. For instance, you just have to have faith that Greenland exists.
  
  I see your point, though. It can get down to the point where you have to have faith that the evidence for a theory exists because you cannot verify it first hand. At that point it comes down to confidence in the scientific method (Peer review, replication, etc.). I have a pretty high confidence in the method because of the tangible results that it is directly responsible for. If it didn't work, we wouldn't be typing away on this here intarweb today. :)
  
  As a pragmatic person, if it did not produce results, then I would be a lot more skeptical about the extraordinary claims of quantum physics and relativity, etc.
  
  That's not to say that the scientific method is infallible or doesn't have issues, but it's the best system of gaining knowledge that we've got and the good thing about it is that it is self correcting over time.
  
  rem
• 

  the_classicist

  Here's a story similar, but not the same as the one I'm thinking of: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/09/26/physics_fraud020926
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  hey Big Dog,

  So if you want to argue "faith", I'd say that many that believe in science have just as much faith as those that believe in religion.

  you have a point, except an important caveat: the self-correcting nature of science.

  this means that while you may not be able to replicate the experiments, or look at the same fossil in person, there are many other scientists (apart from the one hypothesizing) who are able to do these things for you. and they do. it's part of the scientific method. unlike religion, it is in a scientists best interest, career wise, to shoot holes in other scientists hypotheses. this sort of skepticism is rewarded by the scientific community. and if you wanted to, there is nothing stopping you from replicating the experiment yourself. it's all falsifiable. if you can't falsify it yourself, you can always read about other scientists trying to falsify it for you, and humanity.

  you have to know, that every scientific theory, and successful hypothesis, has gone through a battery of peer review. peer review is not a forgiving process. if you are massaging data, or trying to be some hot shot with radical ideas that do not add up based on existing evidence, then you will quickly be called out on it.

  and this is how science is self correcting. and this is how we can trust what we read in journals, AND popularizers , like Discover.

  and like SNG has said before: science is manifestly real. it makes a real difference in our lives, unlike religion.

  TS
• 

  Big Dog

  
  
  REM, I agree, that's why I'm no Luddite, I see the space shuttle and my pc and so forth and realize that yep, though I can't do the math to calculate the proper launch trajectory for a rocket its obvious someone can, and it works!
  

  
  
  Faith was the best word that I could come up with to use though I realize I am using it loosely, but that's what I would call what I have in a surgeon that is about to cut me open, I have faith that he knows what the heck he is doing and so on.
  

  
  
  But I'll make the font bigger so no one thinks I am some reactionist who wants to go back to the stone age, lol. Just saying because most of us can't do it, we have to take it on "faith" (someone pick a better word and we'll go with that).
• 

  Big Dog

  Tetra, I hear you, I watched my brother in law get ready to defend is dissertation in Polymer Science and it was not pretty. I totally get the scientific method and see its results, just that for most of us its sort of vodoo since we just can't understand it.

  Its a sense of wonder, maybe that's a better way of saying it than faith, when we see anything we don't fully understand but realize that is real. I get much the same feeling when watching some incredible athletic feats, you just sit there and say, well, I saw the guy do it with my own eyes but I just can't believe the human body is capable of that, mine sure isn't.