Is science faith-based?

No.

Oh, you want details? OK then.

If you read any antiscience screeds, at some point or another most will claim that science is based on faith just as much as religion is. For example, the horrific Answers in Genesis website has this to say about science:

Much of the problem stems from the different starting points of our divergence with Darwinists. Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths. This starting point, whatever it is, can only be accepted by faith; eventually, in each belief system, there must be some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning (since an infinite regression is impossible).

This is completely wrong. It shows (unsurprisingly) an utter misunderstanding of how science works. Science is not faith-based, and here’s why.

The scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules. That’s it. There is one corollary, and that is that if the Universe follows these rules, then those rules can be deduced by observing the way Universe behaves. This follows naturally; if it obeys the rules, then the rules must be revealed by that behavior.

A simple example: we see objects going around the Sun. The motion appears to follow some rules: the orbits are conic sections (ellipses, circles, parabolas, hyperbolas), the objects move faster when they are closer to the Sun, if they move too quickly they can escape forever, and so on.

From these observations we can apply mathematical equations to describe those motions, and then use that math to predict where a given object will be at some future date. Guess what? It works. It works so well that we can shoot probes at objects billions of kilometers away and still nail the target to phenomenal accuracy. This supports our conclusion that the math is correct. This in turn strongly implies that the Universe is following its own rules, and that we can figure them out.

Now, of course that is a very simple example, and is not meant to be complete, but it gives you an idea of how this works. Now think on this: the computer you are reading this on is entirely due to science. The circuits are the end result of decades, centuries of exploration in how electricity works and how quantum particles behave. The monitor is a triumph of scientific engineering, whether it’s a CRT or an LCD flat panel. The mouse might use an LED, or a simple ball-and-wheel. The keyboard uses springs, the wireless uses radio technology, the speakers use electromagnetism.^*

Look around. Cars, airplanes, buildings. iPods, books, clothing. Agriculture, plumbing, waste disposal. Light bulbs, vacuum cleaners, ovens. These are all the products of scientific research. If your TV breaks, you can pray that it’ll spontaneously start working again, but my money would be on someone who has learned how to actually fix it based on scientific and engineering principles.

All the knowledge we have accumulated over the millennia comes together in a harmonious symphony of science. We’re not guessing here: this stuff was designed using previous knowledge developed in a scientific manner over centuries. And it works. All of this goes to support our underlying assumption that the Universe obeys rules that we can deduce.

Are there holes in this knowledge? Of course. Science doesn’t have all the answers. But science has a tool, a power that its detractors never seem to understand.

Science is not simply a database of knowledge. It’s a method, a way of finding this knowledge. Observe, hypothesize, predict, observe, revise. Science is provisional; it’s always open to improvement. Science is even subject to itself. If the method itself didn’t work, we’d see it. Our computers wouldn’t work (OK, bad example), our space probes wouldn’t get off the ground, our electronics wouldn’t work, our medicine wouldn’t work. Yet, all these things do in fact function, spectacularly well. Science is a check on itself, which is why it is such an astonishingly powerful way of understanding reality.

And that right there is where science and religion part ways. Science is not based on faith. Science is based on evidence. We have evidence it works, vast amounts of it, billions of individual pieces that fit together into a tapestry of reality. That is the critical difference. Faith, as it is interpreted by most religions, is not evidence-based, and is generally held tightly even despite evidence against it. In many cases, faith is even reinforced when evidence is found contrary to it.

To say that we have to take science on faith is such a gross misunderstanding of how science works that it can only be uttered by someone who is wholly ignorant of how reality works.

The next time someone tries to tell you that science is just as faith-based as religion, or that evolution is a religion, point them here. Perhaps the evidence of science may sway them. Perhaps not; it’s difficult to reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. But the next time they get on a computer, maybe they’ll take a slightly more critical look at it, and wonder if its workings are a miracle, or the results of brilliant minds over many generations toiling away at the scientific method.

---

^*The irony of Answers in Genesis denigrating science on a website is not lost on me.

Article reproduced with permission from: Bad Astronomy Blog Copyright © 2008 All Rights Reserved.

A discussion about this article can be found here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106792

Why are Americans so Afraid of Science?

I originally posted this blog over at my local paper. I toned it down a lot though, because I live in theitard country. First, here is the blog as I posted it. Then I will add some additional thoughts on the subject:

So this week the Large Hadron Collider will go online. It's an incredible piece of machinery, that will hopefully truly expand our understanding of the universe. Yet, there are people (mostly in the US), that are protesting this device, fearing that it will destroy the earth. They cite things like "strangelets" and "micro black holes" amongst much worse non-sense.

Okay, what's that got to do with the title of my post? Well, it just seems that the US is falling further and further behind in any scientific endeavours. Not only that, we seem to be getting less and less scientifically literate. To be scientifically literate, you only need to (for example) understand an article on protein synthesis in a major news paper. You don't need to actually be able to go into a lab and perform the synthesis. In the United States, if you are a college graduate, you will probably have a 28% chance of being scientifically literate. If you have a High School education, then that chance is down to 7%.

To the people that are afraid of the LHC destroying the world, perhaps some words from a scientist that works there:

"What I would say is that it is not sensible to hold an opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whilst I understand that much of the language of particle physics is opaque, there does come a time when it is worth accepting the views of experts. The analogy I would give is the design of aircraft wings - I am happy to trust an expert in aerodynamics to get it right rather than offer my own opinion about what shape they should be. It’s really the case that the particle physics community are sensible, rational human beings who go about their research because they believe that exploring the subatomic world is good for our civilization, not to mention interesting. It is also true that if anyone, including myself, had any doubt about the safety of what we are doing, we would stop immediately. I and all my colleagues consider our personal safety and the safety of our families to be FAR more important than the search for the Higgs particle - indeed, if the risk were even as high as 1 in a billion, or whatever people quote, then I would be campaigning with you to stop it."

Yet for some reason, people who can't even tell the difference between a boson or a fermion, think they can read an in-depth paper that they can't really understand and interpret it correctly.

And it goes further. Our lack of scientific literacy leads to bad policy decisions by our leaders. We engage in futile (but perhaps well intentioned) efforts to do things that are frankly just plain stupid. And speaking of stupid, how many of you actually know that the earth revolves around the sun? Statistically, 20% of you have it backwards!

All this, along with our horrible standing in education competence, leads me to believe that Americans must be afraid of science. Why else would we develop such an anti-science culture?

What are your thoughts on this subject?

Additional thoughts:
Sure enough, the first reply nailed it: "The more science, the less church is believable. I think that pretty much sums it up." Granted, considering the audience, I didn't want to be too in their face about it, so I softened things up a bit, especially in my follow up comments.

Today, not 24 hours after posting that, I see a blog on the paper about the LHC destroying the wold: http://tinyurl.com/5gbvv3 Read the link at the danger of theitard idiocy, but it's frikkin entertaining/scary.

Sam Harris has touched on the subject as well, but it seems that we are slowly forcing ourselves into a third rate society of illiterates. And I lay the blame squarely at the feet of religion. Yes, yet another reason as to why it's such a poison to the advancement of our species.

We're Still Stupid About Evolution

I just wanted to link to the article posted at Ars Technica about how misperceptions meet state of the art in evolution research. I know that I am still totally flabbergasted at how ignorant some people choose to be, but I am FRIGHTENED when those same ignorant people somehow end up in charge of education. All the recent flurry of activity on the dimly thought out ID farce in Florida just confirms that fear. While I admit that I may not totally understand every nuance of Evolution, I will say that this theory has the hallmarks of a good and sound theory. I just hope that people that try to intentionally delude themselves about it will also intentionally step away from their positions of power until their mental deficiencies can be addressed! That is all.

Large Hadron Collider

There is a lot of buzz about this thing, and rightfully so! I am very excited by the potential doors of understanding that this will open for us. I find it sort of funny/ironic that we are calling the Higgs particle the "god particle" considering my personal views. I do wonder how this may relate to finding the link between "mass" particles, and understanding the mechanism of gravity.

I also recall reading a paper on Brane Theory that postulated that the LHC will approach the energy levels to spontaneously create small extra dimensional spaces that could expand into their own separate universes. While the math and theories were pretty esoteric, I am not sure we'll actually hit those levels. Would be cool to be our own creators though. Would we be akin to gods then? Well, we could only hoe that any intelligence in the other universe would be smart enough to NOT develop religion! But that's just me being snarky I suppose.

Anyway, the purpose of today's blog is to give folks a bunch of links to a very interesting topic and hope you all learn something and explore the sources of information. Please, keep in mind that even though I may link to Wikipedia a lot, don't take that as the final word! Verify any information you may find there with other sources.

There is no Faith in Science

That is to say, you never, ever take a leap of faith in science. All too often, I hear apologetics, and even downright fundies, say that this that or the other thing in science takes some sort of leap of faith. I HATE that! There is no such thing as a leap of faith in science. Perhaps a leap of logic, but that is an entirely different thing. I just wanted to share the Bad Astronomy Blog that talks to this more eloquently than I probably could.

Now, I'm not going to say that people of faith can't be scientists (many of them are). But don't mix the two! That is all I ask. You compromise your intellectual integrity, as well as your credibility when you do.

Another excellent discussion of the intellectual (and epistemological) integrity required in science is George H. Smith's book, Why Atheism? While I support the book as a free thinker and humanist, I think it would behoove anyone who wishes to explore the philosophical underpinnings of free thought and how any sort of religious thought is inherently intellectually dishonest.

Anyway, my thought for today. By the way, I need a better name for this blog... Anyone have any ideas?