The Faith of Science

[cthuljew]

I’ve come to the not too recent conclusion that science does, indeed require faith

Comments

[luinied]

I don't know, I think it's perfectly possible to get along without this sort of faith. It might be comforting to believe that there won't be anything out there that science can't explain, but if such a thing were to turn up, it's not like it would invalidate everything that science has figured out. And if you're a scientist working on some way-out-there research, it's not as though assurances that your problem can be addressed scientifically gives you much confidence that your ideas are the ones that will make sense of it.

[bigvividworld]

You have poorly defined 'faith.' Nevertheless, I should say that it is possible to have faith in science, but it is not required. That's at least one difference.

A better question: Is 4chan moral?

Science doesn't require faith...

[pkat]

...but many scientists view science as a religion. I'm not sure that I agree that any faith is necessary in science, at least, not if science is practiced under its fundamental tenets. Science isn't about being RIGHT, or finding all the answers. Science is about understanding the natural world on its own merits. We pose a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, analyze the findings, and propose theories based on those findings. The theories wait to be reaffirmed or denied by future generations. There are no LAWS in science. Statements called LAWS are done so by convention, but they are truly theories that haven't yet been disproven. Science is a way of parsing the universe, as opposed to just guessing, or taking another person's word for it.

I'm not trying to be a pain. I just hate scientists who and science teachers who act as if the theories currently held are hard fact, irrefutable. That their beliefs as to the nature of the universe are the RIGHT ones. That is the attitude of a zealot...science is a method, not a religion.