Is science a belief system?
I think of science as a method to systematically determine and verify aspects of the natural world.
A recent post described science as a belief system.
I would have thought that a 'belief system' would imply a broad set of rules for how to apprehend the natural world, for how to behave with others (morals) and perhaps also for how to think of weighty issues such as mortality. Science certainly gives you a way to apprehend the world, but it doesn't answer the second and third elements.
So....is science a belief system?
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
5 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.No, science is not a belief system. It is proving fact about the world that for centuries people believed were mystical. A solar eclipse can be explained with fact. A partial lunar eclipse can also be explained and calculated instead of believing that someone is splitting the moon. Viruses are explained, sicknesses and chemistry are proven facts and not misunderstood as magic or supernatural.
noworry28
Level 8
Nov 12, 2017
0
"Is science a belief system?"
No, belief is for suckers. Assigning probability is for rationalists.
'I think of science as a method to systematically determine and verify aspects of the natural world.'
Ideas about the world - period.
'A recent post described science as a belief system.'
That's a very common misconception.
'I would have thought that a 'belief system' would imply a broad set of rules for how to apprehend the natural world, for how to behave with others (morals) and perhaps also for how to think of weighty issues such as mortality.'
Well maybe yes but science simply assesses claims as shown to be wrong or not shown to be wrong YET. Science never proved anything right.
'Science certainly gives you a way to apprehend the world, but it doesn't answer the second and third elements.'
It can certainly help though.
'So....is science a belief system?'
No because it's not about what's true it's about whether claims can be supported or not.
Paul
Level 5
Nov 12, 2017
0
I had commented on something earlier that offers an appropriate response.
It had to do with determining what "Just-Faith" is, as opposed to "Blind Faith".
Religion is Blind Faith, with some slight variant of just-Faith in regards to Inductive Reasoning.
Science operates with a Faith in Deductive Reasoning, which results in truth.
I have Faith that the Sun will rise and set tomorrow because, both, my lifetime of observations and a clear Scientific understanding that was determined using DEDUCTIVE REASONING.
That deduction remains true aside from some cataclysmic event.
I have Faith that those I've known well and respected for many years of interactions would never willfully harm me in any way for their own gain. However, things can happen. People can make bad decisions with unintended consequences, which makes it INDUCTIVE REASONING.
One caveat regarding religiously thinking people who rely on Blind-Faith is that they too often claim to have witnessed, or interpreted, events that support their belief (Biases), and that is the only INDUCTIVE REASONING example I can lend in their claim to it being Just-Faith, instead of Blind-Faith.
"We" know that that reasoning deficiency doesn't hold water.
Sorry if I seem digressive, but I feel it is important to divide Just-Faith and Blind-Faith, along with Inductive and Deductive Reasoning in order to state that:
SCIENCE IS A BELIEF IN DEDUCTIVE REASONING AND SPARINGLY USES INDUCTIVE REASONING WHEN PONDERING POSSIBILITIES
GrassBlade
Level 4
Nov 12, 2017
0
Paul:
Again I disagree with this answer & I'll explain why piecemeal:
"I had commented on something earlier that offers an appropriate response."
OK let's see...
"It had to do with determining what "Just-Faith" is, as opposed to "Blind Faith"."
There is no such thing as Just-Faith only trust which MUST have some demonstrable evidence.
"Religion is Blind Faith, with some slight variant of just-Faith in regards to Inductive Reasoning."
No it's not faith at all it's trust IN something (Faith isn't based on anything demonstrable).
"Science operates with a Faith in Deductive Reasoning, which results in truth."
No it doesn't because it never claims any of it's ideas are unquestionably true & this is why there are Scientific 'Theories' rather than Scientific 'Truths'. Theory is as good as it ever ever ever gets in science.
"I have Faith that the Sun will rise and set tomorrow because, both, my lifetime of observations and a clear Scientific understanding that was determined using DEDUCTIVE REASONING."
No you have masses & masses of demonstrable evidence that the earth rotes once every 24 hours creating the illusion that the sun moves up in the morning when science suggests our earth will spin into it's light every 24 hours. Science does not claim that your viewpoint on earth WILL spin into sunlight tomorrow morning only that it can ascribe a very high probability that it will based on masses & masses of past evidence which means it's trust not baseless faith.
'That deduction remains true aside from some cataclysmic event.'
Precisely therefore science doesn't pretend it absolutely KNOWS what will happen 100%. Maybe 99.999999% but never 100%
"I have Faith that those I've known well and respected for many years of interactions would never willfully harm me in any way for their own gain."
No you don't because you have lots of evidence with regard to their behavior therefore you have something to trust. Faith is only applicable where you only have anecdotes & unsupportable claims.
"However, things can happen. People can make bad decisions with unintended consequences, which makes it INDUCTIVE REASONING."
Sure so your confidence may not be 100% but you have evidence to trust that your confidence may be reasonably close to that amount.
"One caveat regarding religiously thinking people who rely on Blind-Faith is that they too often claim to have witnessed, or interpreted, events that support their belief (Biases), and that is the only INDUCTIVE REASONING example I can lend in their claim to it being Just-Faith, instead of Blind-Faith."
Why? Can the claims they make about witnessing anything supernatural EVER be demonstrated? No. Never. Never ever. this is not an insignificant short coming of such claims.
"We" know that that reasoning deficiency doesn't hold water."
Correct.
Sorry if I seem digressive, but I feel it is important to divide Just-Faith and Blind-Faith, along with Inductive and Deductive Reasoning in order to state that:"
No. Faith is always always always blind because there's no demonstrable evidence at all. Remember that claims & anecdotes are not a form of evidence. Trust however is always based in something demonstrable. That 'something' may or may not be well supported but at least it's supported by something you can SEE. People say 'You have faith in your spouse' but that's not true. You (hopefully!) TRUST your spouse based on SOME evidence. It may not be perfect evidence. It may in fact be very poor evidence but it's more than nothing. Faith in a god IS based on nothing demonstrable therefore it IS faith NOT trust.
SCIENCE IS A BELIEF IN DEDUCTIVE REASONING AND SPARINGLY USES INDUCTIVE REASONING WHEN PONDERING POSSIBILITIES
No. It's simply apportioning confidence according to the strength of the evidence to support it. You can never have perfect evidence therefore you can never have perfect confidence but usually that is no major hinderance to making pretty safe assumptions about the nature of reality & we know this because science generally works & works pretty well when it's well supported.
Paul, It's all fine. It boils down to how we all want to split the hairs of definitions.
OED Defines them as:
FAITH - 1. Complete 'trust' or confidence in someone or something.
ergo, I have complete trust in the scientific method, which is the same as having faith in it.
TRUST - 1. Firm 'belief' in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something.
AND, I have a firm belief in the reliability of the scientific method.
Webster's definitions are certainly targeted more toward the religious.
~
But faith's 13th Century origin, again, leaves it open to use how we please:
"faith, belief, trust, confidence
From the 14th Century:
"confidence in a person or thing with reference to truthfulness or reliability,"
Again, we could go back and forth with splitting hairs, but there is no point. All people take some artistic license in their uses of words.
Most importantly - We're on the same side, and growing in numbers!
I think "beliefs system" is hot wholly accurate.
It is more a systematic way to find new knowledge. It is not perfect system, and may require revised processes to gain better knowledge and results form experiments.
I'd say it is more a system for exploration of the natural world and universe. What is found through exploration becomes firs beliefs and then through repetition of experiments eventually becomes knowledge.
If it is a belief system, than it is the beliefs that we can learn virtually all there is to know about the world and universe through our own reasoning abilities.
Contrast that to religion, where someone else tells you what to believe, requiring no real thought, logic or reasoning. In religion you give away your ability to think freely to church leaders.
snytiger6
Level 9
Nov 12, 2017
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
World Music
1360 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.