Science and Faith

[trublvr]

I found your entire description on how a novice scientist learns to be accurate for a civilian or perhaps a high schooler, but not for a serious academic student. I speak from experience, having recently re-immersed myself in the project and trying to find a doctor with a grant to accept me for PhD training. I can tell you right now that I know of no professor at this university who will not make their assistants work through and derive their equations and proofs until they are satisfied that the novice understand full well the basis of their science. The reason for this is simple: The student's thesis will never pass review if the sole reference they contain is "Dr. Stefford told me it was so.".

Aquatus,

Actually, I never suggested in my previous post that "Dr. Stefford told me it was so" would be an adequate response to a review (or any other kind of scrutiny). In fact, I did not suggest that individual empiricism was not involved; I mentioned it! My point was not to place the authority of a mentor against individual empirical analysis. My point was that there is an inter-play between the authority of the mentor and the individual analysis of the student. In fact, I can draw my point out further by appealing to the communities in which we learn. The very process of learning in the scientific community is often done mentor to student and peer to peer. Many of my friends who are studying to be doctors, engineers, and teachers in the scientific field often talk of the things they've learned in groups with their fellow students in addition to the relationships they have with their overseers. Of course they have to do some individual work, and they would in no way be qualified in their fields if they did not (my friends often speak of slackers who don't do their individual work!). But without the communal aspect of working with others, and without the mentor-student relationships, they could get very little done.

My "faith" in science is nothing more than a measure of probability. I have spent so many years working on proofs, on experimental analysis, on re-tracing the foundations of studies, investigating their credibility, their repeatability; I have, along with so many other scholars, re-traced the steps of hundreds of researchers whose discoveries in science have brought us to where we are today. I "know", not because I have been told to know, but because I have personally followed the logical path from the most basic empirical evidence to the logical conclusion (or conclusions) that can be drawn from it, and have then gone on to verify my answers with completley unbiased seperate sources than my own.

Your statement that you "have, along with so many other scholars, re-traced the steps of hundreds of researchers whose discoveries in science have brought us to where we are today" implies tradition and interaction with others (and I would imagine some kind of deference to the authority of those who come before you--ancient and contemporary). In noting this, I'm in no way trying to chip away at your credentials as a scientist (I'm sure you're a good one); instead, I'm just pointing out the way in which you come to "know" things. I have to ask, though: Do you question every, single thing that you are presented with in the scientific community? Do you truly scrutinize every single equation given to you for your studies/analysis? I am in no way in your league in science or mathematics, Aquatus, but I remember taking math and science classes in college, and I know that there were basic, fundamental equations and principles in both disciplines that you had to trust to even begin doing the most basic math problems and scientific study. Sure, your professors may have given you an explanation of what these things were, but they didn't always scrutinize these things; they are assumed as a starting point (and they should be).

I ask you then, I seriously ask you because I cannot conceive of it; Please tell me how you can justifiably say that the "faith" that you use to believe in your God came about the same way that my "faith" in science came to me. Right now, the only conception I have of religious "faith" is an ad infinitum recitation of your favorite book of faith, until you have memorized and can repeat relevent lines. Am I wrong? Is there something to this "faith", that does not involve relying on a third party to provide you with information? Is there anything that can described as anything other than a subjective experience?

I in no way mean to suggest that the way in which you came to be a scientist is exactly the way in which I became a Christian. If I have given you this impression, I apologize. I don't feel as if I am obligated to do this, because I do not believe that the only way to apprehend truth is through the vehicle of science. This is not to say that I don't believe that the scientific enterprise the workings of faith don't have healthy points of intersection. It's just that I don't limit good empiricism and rationale to scientific proficiency. And the Christian way is not "an ad infinitum recitation of your favorite book of faith, until you have memorized and can repeat relevent lines. " (emphasis mine) Whether you believe this or not (and I know you do not), this is not an accurate representation of the Christian way or how people come to follow Jesus. And, yes, we not only rely on "third parties", but we also rely on traditions from the ancients and others in our contemporary communities. For us (and for people of other faith-traditions), there is an interplay of subjective experience with objective proof and reliance on objective authority. For me, I grew up as a polytheist. I learned about Christianity in school and at church, but I rejected much of it. I came to a personal crisis at 19, and I began to visit a church. I had a miraculous experience with Jesus one day, and I began to follow him. My investigation of the faith and the veracity of much the claims that it made came with time through research/reading and sitting under the toutelage of some great folks. Also, my existential, day-to-day living according to Jesus' teachings (with varying degrees of success and failure) confirmed much of the one I'd come to trust in.

I know that this is not what you would deem as good, empirical evidence, but I'm curious about something: You made this statement: "Is there something to this "faith", that does not involve relying on a third party to provide you with information? Is there anything that can described as anything other than a subjective experience?"(emphasis mine) Is science this way for you? You mean to tell me that you don't have to rely on someone outside of yourself for information? Is every equation you utilize self-generated? Is every theorem or hypothesis? And do you mean to communicate that the scientific discipline truly devoid of subjectivism? I ask this with no malice or sarcasm. Thanks for conversing about this.

[seventh_son]

I believe!

Edited August 19, 2004 by seventh_son

[aquatus1]

No, don't misunderstand, I wrote that tidbit back when I was burdened by other aggravations that had nothing to do with this site, so you are correct that you have no obligation to apologize, since no insult was given. I was reacting somewhat irrationality after having spent over eight hours studying for a physics mid-term and running into a poster who wished to equate those efforts to his abilities to quote from the Bible (and incorrectly, at that). You have never shown anything other than perfect civility in your posts.

You made this statement: "Is there something to this "faith", that does not involve relying on a third party to provide you with information? Is there anything that can described as anything other than a subjective experience?"(emphasis mine) Is science this way for you? You mean to tell me that you don't have to rely on someone outside of yourself for information? Is every equation you utilize self-generated? Is every theorem or hypothesis? And do you mean to communicate that the scientific discipline truly devoid of subjectivism? I ask this with no malice or sarcasm. Thanks for conversing about this.

This is an excellent question (or questions, rather). It is very important as well, because in answering it, we will define exactly how finely the definition between science and faith is drawn.

Now, the most important thing to realize, right off the bat, is that we are talking about learning, not about data. Notice that your paragraph is talking specifically about data, i.e. the formulas and equations. Data, by its very nature, is almost exclusively external. The only way we can perceive it is through our senses, and the only way our senses can measure it is if it comes from a third party. Logically then, all data is equal; whether it be a priest telling a young boy that Christ rose from the dead, or a teacher telling his student that A2 + B2 = C2, both sets of data are externally generated and taken into the host. It is at this point, however, that religion and science take two seperate paths.

In faith, the learning process is not objective. As you pointed out, the discovery of Faith is a truly personal, uniquely individual process that may happen one way to some and another way to others. The data can be interpreted in many different ways by many different people. There is really no 'learning' process common to everyone. There is no course of logical steps that everyone can agree arrives at the same conclusion. Ultimately, wether you decide to believe in any given data is less a result of logical reasoning, and more a simple statement of, well...Faith.

Science on the other hand, has no place for faith in its methodology. In science, faith is replace by credibility. If a given packet of data does not meet certain criteria required by the scientific world, than that data is considered to lack credibility. So, let us say that I am given data, such as A2 + B2 = C2. When I am first learning this equation, I am not allowed to take it on faith (believe me, if I could have, I would). This data is tested and retested, and the results are compared with others which have been seperately calculated. If the data is truly objective, than the results should be statistically similar, regardless of any given persons belief or faith in the matter. No matter who uses the equation, it should always work in the same manner. By following the exact same logical steps, everyone can come to the same result, using the same data.

So, in answer to your first question: "You mean to tell me that you don't have to rely on someone outside of yourself for information?", the answer is a qualified "Yes." The data will always come from an external source. The difference is that in science you have an objective way of verifying the credibility of the information, whereas in faith, you do not.

Your second and third questions are similar: "Is every equation you utilize self-generated? Is every theorem or hypothesis?" This returns to my previous statement of credibility replacing faith. The Pythagorean Theorum is currently holding the Guinness Book of World Record's place as the most independantly proven equation in history (there was even a book with over three thousand individual proofs of this published once). The credibility of this equation is very high, so chances are that I would never bother to ensure the equation itself is correct (besides, I did it in high school). Remember, verified does not necessarily mean you are the source. After all, you can be wrong too. Equations are not so much self-generated, as they are self-verified, usually when learning it and rarely ever after.

As for theories, they are under an eternal process of re-checking and verification. Every piece of new data that we have has to be checked against existing theories, and if the theory does not explain the data, then the theory must be re-written. Notice that this differs from the Faith viewpoint. If new data appears, and it cannot be be accounted for by the faith, then the data is either ignored defamed. Under no circumstances will the original faith be modified.

Now, your final question..."And do you mean to communicate that the scientific discipline truly devoid of subjectivism?" The answer to that is No. Scientific Methodology is. The results of a scientific study are. The scientific discipline, however, is neither of these. The scientific discipline are all the academics who interpret these impirical results, and anytime that humans get interpreting anything, there will be a certain subjectivity involved. One need look no further than the various theories that exists for any given phenomena to see evidence of this. Any theory can be valid as long as it meets all the prerequisites of methodology and verifiability. How credible it is, however, relies on how reliably it can predict statistically correct results.

I'm not sure if I explained the distinction between science and faith as clearly as I would like. If I have not, please ask and I will expand. For the record, I do not believe that the two can ever be reconciled, but that they can exist in a "live and let live" manner.