They get the credit for relentlessly promoting the idea, at the very least.
I was mostly thinking of T.S. Elliot and C.S.Lewis at the time.
Ok, I see now. For the record, I was mostly asking for specifics because I was tired of reading other peoples vague protestations against my posts, some of which I tried to make very clear. Your post read as "smart people agree with me"; it's an argument I have little patience for.
While I can't comment on T.S. Elliot, I've read Lewis' opinions on secularism and they make me think he was never very secular. They read to me like they were written by someone who thought faith was totally awesome, but had trouble finding the right one. He doesn't seem to come from where I see things, which is the case for most (maybe all) religious apologia.
By continuity I meant a feeling of being connected with the past that gives a sense of immortality going forward into the future. I expected this to be something one can only really appreciate on an intellectual level, but I suppose most enjoy it unconsciously.
That's the thing: that continuity is not intellectual to me. Such a sense is very misplaced, when you stop to consider that most of history is lost to us. Such a continuity does not exist; only the illusion of one does.
Besides, it also give a feeling of connection to thinkers of the past who tended to be quite religious and are often admired today.
I'd like to point out that those great thinker were not revered for their religious ideals. We know Newton for physics and calculus; Pythagoras for geometry; and Laplace for astronomy (among other things of course). We do not revere Newton's mistaken (and possibly apocryphal) belief that he'd demonstrated that god exists. We do not respect or admire Pythagoras's irrational belief that irrational numbers did not exist. We do not mention that Laplace was likely an atheist, despite his very catholic upbringing. What we respect about great thinkers and those thinker's religious beliefs are almost always very different things.
Faith is a virtue in how one deals with the unknowable and is closely linked to hope.
I would argue that faith is a poor way of dealing with the unknowable; given faiths tract record with what we can know (to reasonable certainty), I wouldn't trust faith in a field where it can't be tested.
I am sorry but I still don't think faith means what they think it means. We don't have faith in science for example, we have reasonable expectations. Otherwise we wouldn't bother with observation we would assume it would go just as predicted. I wouldn't say "2+2 can equal 5 trust me on this one, why won't you just have faith ? " rather I would have to have a reason to make that observation and expect such a result. when adding 2.5 to 2.5 I can reasonably expect the result to be 5. oh well.
From my initial response to their two prior videos, I can see what the staff of Extra Credits is getting to. However, there is something that they didn't make note of that they may or may not have realized from the 2 prior video's comments.
Faith is a core part of what humanity is, and what defines us as individuals. Everyone, no matter their field or origin, has base beliefs at the core of their understanding. The very force that drove Extra Credit to make this video, is the one that fueled the very thing that they revile. The reason that this video was made was the Extra Credit staff's faith that anything is worth educated and calm discussion. The fuel behind the previous video's comments was the fundamental difference between the basis of faith in science and religion.
Religion often asks for faith in something that cannot be perceived, while science has the exact opposite, a faith in your perceptions.
I think what most of us as game designers, or as people, can take away from these videos is that differentiating faith often leads to heated discussions over fundamental beliefs that cannot be proven true or false, and thus must be handled delicately, or subtly so as not to cause direct conflict between those of different faith. Such conflict is pointless because neither faith is wrong, and thus no discussion of these faiths is likely to change those of another. If we instead challenge faith discretely, these essential cores, of who we are might grow and allow for the creation of new faiths, which will allow for new ideas in every aspect of humanity.
From my initial response to their two prior videos, I can see what the staff of Extra Credits is getting to. However, there is something that they didn't make note of that they may or may not have realized from the 2 prior video's comments.
Faith is a core part of what humanity is, and what defines us as individuals. Everyone, no matter their field or origin, has base beliefs at the core of their understanding. The very force that drove Extra Credit to make this video, is the one that fueled the very thing that they revile. The reason that this video was made was the Extra Credit staff's faith that anything is worth educated and calm discussion. The fuel behind the previous video's comments was the fundamental difference between the basis of faith in science and religion.
Religion often asks for faith in something that cannot be perceived, while science has the exact opposite, a faith in your perceptions.
I think what most of us as game designers, or as people, can take away from these videos is that differentiating faith often leads to heated discussions over fundamental beliefs that cannot be proven true or false, and thus must be handled delicately, or subtly so as not to cause direct conflict between those of different faith. Such conflict is pointless because neither faith is wrong, and thus no discussion of these faiths is likely to change those of another. If we instead challenge faith discretely, these essential cores, of who we are might grow and allow for the creation of new faiths, which will allow for new ideas in every aspect of humanity.
Dear EC team,
I'm disappointed in you. Hell, I'm angry with you. You made a mistake in the prior video concerning the meaning of faith, and here you've simply repeated the error in more detail and as condescendingly as you could manage. You talk about people having a "knee-jerk" reaction to religion, and while I haven't read all of the comments, I can tell you I have yet to see anything like that. Most of the criticism has to do with you failing to understand what faith is and how something like science works. Faith is defined as complete or absolute trust and belief regardless of evidence. That is simply the definition (as it applies in this context). Science, however, rejects faith because it is intended to be constantly tested -- after all, strictly speaking science can only disprove its own ideas -- and is based *entirely* on evidence.
You use the example of Newtonian physics and say "we had faith in this", yet you fail to understand that that is the opposite of faith because when Newtonian physics were tested and found to not quite match the evidence it was replaced with a better model. That is completely counter to faith -- it shows a lack of absolute or complete trust and the acceptance of the theory was contingent on evidence. Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics is an example of faith because it is a rejection of a theory despite the evidence.
And no, a good scientist doesn't have faith in their perceptions -- all hypotheses must be tested and replicated by others. If results can be replicated and confirmed we are left with two options: either everyone's senses are all being fooled in the exact same way or our perceptions are correct. Reasonably, we go with the latter because it is far more likely. Assuming that our senses are generally accurate, and that the universe is governed by forces and laws which can be known is a basal assumption that has to be made in order for us to accomplish anything and is borne out by the evidence.
Making that mistake in the first place was understandable, and when I saw numerous commentors explaining it to you, I thought that would be the end of it. Instead you came back to the subject and demonstrated that you had either completely ignored much of the criticism or you fundamentally failed to understand it. That was not so understandable. Then you decided to be condescending about your response -- and THAT pissed me off. I know that by now you probably won't see this, let alone read it, but I hope you do and I want you to understand this.
Dear EC team,
I'm disappointed in you. Hell, I'm angry with you. You made a mistake in the prior video concerning the meaning of faith, and here you've simply repeated the error in more detail and as condescendingly as you could manage. You talk about people having a "knee-jerk" reaction to religion, and while I haven't read all of the comments, I can tell you I have yet to see anything like that. Most of the criticism has to do with you failing to understand what faith is and how something like science works. Faith is defined as complete or absolute trust and belief regardless of evidence. That is simply the definition (as it applies in this context). Science, however, rejects faith because it is intended to be constantly tested -- after all, strictly speaking science can only disprove its own ideas -- and is based *entirely* on evidence.
You use the example of Newtonian physics and say "we had faith in this", yet you fail to understand that that is the opposite of faith because when Newtonian physics were tested and found to not quite match the evidence it was replaced with a better model. That is completely counter to faith -- it shows a lack of absolute or complete trust and the acceptance of the theory was contingent on evidence. Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics is an example of faith because it is a rejection of a theory despite the evidence.
And no, a good scientist doesn't have faith in their perceptions -- all hypotheses must be tested and replicated by others. If results can be replicated and confirmed we are left with two options: either everyone's senses are all being fooled in the exact same way or our perceptions are correct. Reasonably, we go with the latter because it is far more likely. Assuming that our senses are generally accurate, and that the universe is governed by forces and laws which can be known is a basal assumption that has to be made in order for us to accomplish anything and is borne out by the evidence.
Making that mistake in the first place was understandable, and when I saw numerous commentors explaining it to you, I thought that would be the end of it. Instead you came back to the subject and demonstrated that you had either completely ignored much of the criticism or you fundamentally failed to understand it. That was not so understandable. Then you decided to be condescending about your response -- and THAT pissed me off. I know that by now you probably won't see this, let alone read it, but I hope you do and I want you to understand this.
I am amazed by how many people are missing the point.
Alright, since some of you seem to refuse the very CONCEPT of science having anything at all to do with faith, let me break it down in four sentences.
Relying on observations to arrive at conclusions mandates that you assume your observations are valid. Assuming something is true with no evidence is faith. You can not derive evidence if observations are not reliable. Since you can not prove your observations are reliable, and since believing they are anyway without evidence (which you are denied by senses of unverifiable accuracy) is an act of faith, it follows logically that using observations to come to conclusions is an act of faith.
I am amazed by how many people are missing the point.
Alright, since some of you seem to refuse the very CONCEPT of science having anything at all to do with faith, let me break it down in four sentences.
Relying on observations to arrive at conclusions mandates that you assume your observations are valid. Assuming something is true with no evidence is faith. You can not derive evidence if observations are not reliable. Since you can not prove your observations are reliable, and since believing they are anyway without evidence (which you are denied by senses of unverifiable accuracy) is an act of faith, it follows logically that using observations to come to conclusions is an act of faith.
You do realize that observations that are documented and peer-reviewed / replicated ARE evidence in science? Therefore you're asking for evidence for evidence, which is nonsensical. It's not really all that different from deviding by zero in math.
Even if our senses are fooled by an artificial computer, feeding signals to a brain in a vat, observations regarding the existance as we know it still holds true. It doesn't really matter to science if what we're observing is real or not as long as your observations are accurate scientifically speaking, not existancially speaking and this we can verify through calibrations, standardizations, using control samples and through peer-review / replication of the results independently.
Evidence is generally concidered to be self evident, ergo evidence cannot be not evidence.
Therefore evidence = evidence of evidence in itself, ergo evidence = evidence.
Thus we can conclude that evidence =/= not evidence
Thus your demand for evidence for observations, which are evidence in themselves, is nonsensical and childish.
...Relying on observations to arrive at conclusions mandates that you assume your observations are valid...
Oh, is that how it works? Awesome! I'm gonna go get really high and hallucinate some unicorns. Those damn elitist biologists can't question me; they just have to assume my observation was valid!!
Assuming something is true is not an act of faith. Mathematicians do it all the time, usually to disprove something: you assume proposition A is true and then derive a logical contradiction, thereby demonstrating that A cannot be true. You can assume something is true and try to investigate the consequences of that without believing that it actually is true. No faith is involved.
@Toothgnasher
I think you're misunderstanding was the EC team is saying here. Faith is not "complete or absolute trust and belief regardless of evidence." That definition is actually closer to dogmatism, which is NOT the same as faith. One can have faith without being dogmatic about it. Merriam-Webster defines faith as:
"1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs"
So in this case, faith is the belief in something that has no proof, not tightly holding onto your beliefs no matter what the evidence says. That's dogmatism. Also note that this branch of the definition has meaning outside of religion.
Faith can evolve. Faith does not have to be ridged, as you seem to suggest. While I can't speak to the truth of everything the EC team said, what they said about geometry, and math in general, is correct. While some things can be proven, many of our equations that we use to procure "evidence" are true simply by way of not yet being proven false. Say what you will, but from where I'm standing, that sounds like belief in the absence of definitive proof.
This is a response to everyone that said it: The EC team was not trying to be condescending. It's unfortunate that so many people on this thread have felt that way. All they were doing was putting their two cents in, the way all of us are doing; and they were only trying to get us to see their side of it, not lord their position over us as the best or only one. They looked at the threads, and saw people being hostile towards the idea that faith is a part of science, or even being human, which it totally is. Let me give an example that has been listed before:
Love. While you may be able to offer some "evidence" (the way someone looks at you, gift exchanging, physical contact), none of those can prove love exists. And many people belief it doesn't. Both the belief in and denial of love are faiths. You can say this about almost anything that would require faith. Atheism takes just as much faith as Buddhism, Christianity, or Islamism. Furthermore, when you go to bed at night, do you not assume you will wake up in the morning? Belief without proof. That's faith. And that's all the EC team was trying to get at.
While science takes all evidence into account, tests things countless times, and ultimately evolves, that does not mean faith has no place. Somewhere along the way to any great discovery, someone had an idea they believed in. Maybe it was proven true, maybe false, but if they never thought for a moment it might be true, why were they even researching it? But that can easily be ripped apart and ultimately doesn't matter. The point is that once we find a system that works, we believe in it until a new system shows up that works better. Sometimes the "proof" we have is erroneous. In fact, over time many of our truths are rewritten. "Proof" is not always as sound as it sounds. So maybe that doesn't fit in exactly with the definition of belief in the absence of proof. But sometimes investing in proof takes a little bit of faith. The EC team wasn't saying that the basis of EVERYTHING is faith, but that most endeavors, scientific or otherwise, take a grain of faith or two somewhere along the line.
No offense intended. No condescension intended. Just the way I see things.
And bigots aren't usually trying to be hateful. What EC tried doing doesn't actually matter. What they did do was argue against criticism that most detractors did not put forward. They dismissed 95% of the arguments that was offered against them, without even mentioning the arguments, while scolding us for being dogmatic. That is absolutely condescending.
The rest of your post has already been addressed ad nauseum in the thread.
@fizzix
I agree with some of what you're saying that "assuming something is true is not an act of faith" and your example makes a valid point, but i disagree slightly. I believe that assuming something is true is not "always" an act of faith, but it usually is; especially when there's no proof or evidence. The point that you made is definitely an exception, i.e. when someone assumes something to be true in order to prove that it is in fact untrue. But at that point, I wouldn't call whatever that person believes to be true as "faith." That just one of my cents, take it as you will.
@crayzz
Is it really that condescending that they couldn't cover every single argument made against them that the forum/comment section made about their previous video and then cram it into a video that was under 10 minutes? (watches video again) I like to think not, but I could be wrong. In my opinion, I feel that they were just using this video to reiterate the claim they made that science isn't completely devoid of an element that can be described as faith and to open people up to that concept. My second cent.
I for one think it has some basis, but I do feel that science, which is done right, does a very good job of minimizing any element of whatever this "faith" might have on any of its final conclusions. This generally comes in the form of stated assumptions, peer review, and reproduction of any and all proofs and/or experiments by other parties, etc. Furthermore, I feel that science's "faith" in its assumptions and its observed laws are always under scrutiny, ready to be exchanged/upgraded to new ones when new and tested data comes in. Which is why I place my faith in science than in any particular religion, but I try to keep myself open to the ideas of others. My third cent, thank you for your time.
Is it really that condescending that they couldn't cover every single argument made against them that the forum/comment section made about their previous video and then cram it into a video that was under 10 minutes?
They didn't address most of the arguments against them. They, instead, addressed a very narrow subsection of the arguments. So narrow, in fact, that I didn't actually see anyone making that argument. EC also claimed we were being dogmatic in not considering their arguments, despite us most of us addressing them specifically and despite EC dismissing ours without consideration. Yes, that's condescending.
I for one think it has some basis, but I do feel that science, which is done right, does a very good job of minimizing any element of whatever this "faith" might have on any of its final conclusions.
Unless you're going to define faith in an extremely general way, such that any belief of any sort, ever, is based on faith, science done right has no faith. Anywhere. Axiomatic assumptions are not examples of "faith". The assumptions are used, not believed true.
@crayzz
I am unfortunately unable to read every single argument that was made against EC on their previous video, so I will consider your view point to be one valid point of view. However, I'm still sticking to my point that it is really difficult to go over every counterargument in detail within a 10-minute video. This video would have to be hours long in order to pose counters for all the arguments against it, and I don't think EC team has the time for that. I will say that you are right that they did address only a very small part of their argument against them and generalized them, but I still believe they did that in order to reiterate their point of view for everyone's consideration. In summary, I agree with you that this video can be seen as condescending, but I don't feel that way about this video.
In reply to your second paragraph, my answer is yes, kind of. I am using faith in an extremely general way that is devoid of its connection to religion. I would describe it to be someone's belief that something is true or not true without proof or evidence. I still feel that some assumptions in science are believed to be true until proven otherwise, and I agree with you that some assumptions are just there to be used and shouldn't be described as faith. However for some kind of assumptions, that belief can be perceived as a form of faith by other people, including myself. I would also stretch this definition to some axiomatic assumptions, and because of this I disagree with the absolutist nature of your argument.
However, I'm still sticking to my point that it is really difficult to go over every counterargument in detail within a 10-minute video.
I'm not saying they need to. I'm saying that if EC going to make a response to us, they should address the arguments most of us made, rather than some near non-existent subsection.
I am using faith in an extremely general way that is devoid of its connection to religion.
It still doesn't apply to science, unless is also applies to literally every type of belief, including hypotheticals.
I still feel that some assumptions in science are believed to be true until proven otherwise...
I don't care about your feelings.
However for some kind of assumptions, that belief can be perceived as a form of faith by other people, including myself.
Such as?
I would also stretch this definition to some axiomatic assumptions...
You could do that. It's not very reasonable though. We don't have "faith" that gases behave ideally. They don't. We know they don't. We use the assumption of ideality to get us close enough to work with gaseous systems. If using an assumption you know if entirely false is an example of faith, then you're definition of "faith" is so general that it's meaningless. And even if you want to use that definition of faith, it's still dishonest to equate that "faith" with religious faith, which is exactly what EC is trying to do.
@crayzz
I don't know how to use the quote system, so I'll respond to each of your points using numbers if you don't mind.
1) I think I'm understanding your point a bit more. If I were to summarize your opinion like so, "The EC team should have been more thorough in their counterarguments, if they were going to respond to us at all." Would that be correct?
2) In that particular statement, I was trying to clarify my definition, which I defined in the following statement. To answer your follow-up question, I think my definition can apply to some theories in science and it can apply to some generic beliefs on a case-by-case basis. Most hypotheticals are the type of assumptions that are devoid of faith. But faith in a belief such as that can also depend on the person who believes it.
3) Let me rephrase that statement from "I still feel that some" to "I would argue that most." I'm sorry that you did not accept my feelings, but thanks for pointing that out.
4) The existence of magnetic monopoles. Some scientists believe that they exist and are looking for evidence of their existence, but none has been observed yet. I could see how someone would describe that belief to have some element of what they call "faith." I see them as the new neutrinos.
5) Yes, I would also consider the ideal gas law to be an example were an assumption is made where faith is not involved. Mostly because we already know it to be untrue as you point out. Another example would be the assumptions of frictionless surfaces and no air resistance used in simple dynamics problems. So we agree on that, and that's fine. What I'm trying to argue is that having the perception that a few aspects of science has some element to it that can be described as faith is a valid viewpoint. Unfortunately, I feel that we are at a stand-off where we disagree on a fundamental level and will only go in a loop, but I thank you for this discussion. Although, I don't mind continuing for a bit longer.
Also, let me rephrase that last statement you quoted, I used the word "definition" when I meant to say "perception." I didn't need to stretch my definition any further.
@Toothgnasher
I think you're misunderstanding was the EC team is saying here. Faith is not "complete or absolute trust and belief regardless of evidence." That definition is actually closer to dogmatism..
"dogmatism" has additional implications that aren't really relevant to the conversation. The correct word here is not "dogmatism" it is "faith."
The EC team was not trying to be condescending. It's unfortunate that so many people on this thread have felt that way. All they were doing was putting their two cents in
That's just not true. They didn't just put their ideas out there and shrug their shoulders when people disagree with them. They put their ideas out there and then, when people disagreed with them, they complained about how disappointed they were in everyone who didn't agree.
Not disappointed that their ideas weren't accepted, mind you. Disappointed in their viewers for not accepting them.
Maybe they didn't mean to be condescending, but it's hard to be that condescending by accident.
Love. While you may be able to offer some "evidence" (the way someone looks at you, gift exchanging, physical contact), none of those can prove love exists.
Word games are not impressive. If you're using the colloquial definition of prove your statement is false. If you're using the strict definition is is technically true but about as meaningful as saying "You can't fix a car by enpurpling it."
Bearing in mind that there are over six billion people in the world, and that nearly any strange belief you can imagine is probably held by someone, so we can't use a word like "many" to mean something like "more than six"... you're just wrong.
You've been trained to think "You can't prove love," is a meaningful argument, and you're being confronted with the fact it's not, and now you're making absurd claims, things you don't even really believe, to spare yourself from having to recognize that.
Is it really that condescending that they couldn't cover every single argument made against them that the forum/comment section made about their previous video and then cram it into a video that was under 10 minutes?
No. It was condescending to dismiss all criticism as a disappointing knee-jerk reaction anyway.
These sorts of arguments about the role of faith in science are generally terrible, but this was surprisingly mature. I'd never thought about mathematical postulates in that way before. Well done.
Use BB code, if you care to. It's not a big thing; it just makes responses easier to read. You can also use some keyboard shortcuts [like CTRL-Q for blockquoting] if you're posting via the forums.
If I were to summarize your opinion like so, "The EC team should have been more thorough in their counterarguments, if they were going to respond to us at all." Would that be correct?
No. You're close. EC should have addressed the very common and quite consistent criticism that was put forward, since the point of this video was to address what most of us detractors were saying. It's not a matter of thoroughness (though, yes, some thoroughness would have helped) it's a matter of intellectual dishonesty.
The existence of magnetic monopoles. Some scientists believe that they exist and are looking for evidence of their existence, but none has been observed yet. I could see how someone would describe that belief to have some element of what they call "faith." I see them as the new neutrinos.
Tell me, are those scientists abiding the principles of science in assuming the existence of magnetic monopoles? Not everything a scientist does or believes is part of science. This is an example of that.
What I'm trying to argue is that having the perception that a few aspects of science has some element to it that can be described as faith is a valid viewpoint. Unfortunately, I feel that we are at a stand-off where we disagree on a fundamental level and will only go in a loop, but I thank you for this discussion.
Ok, listen: if it takes faith, it's not science. Any assumptions scientists make are used, not believed. If you actually start to believe the assumptions you're using, you're not doing science. Or rather, you're not doing it well.
Also, let me rephrase that last statement you quoted, I used the word "definition" when I meant to say "perception." I didn't need to stretch my definition any further.
That doesn't make your definition any more reasonable, though. My point was that merely using axioms is not faith. If it is, then everything we ever do is based on faith. It's a meaningless modifier, as it modifies nothing.
...it's hard to be that condescending by accident.
For some. For a couple of people so entrenched in their own ideas that they completely missed 90% of the criticism against them, I'd imagine it's quite easy.
Thanks for clarifying. I think I understand your point of view on that, but I still don't agree with it. I would argue that the entire discussion we're having now is exactly what they were covering in the video.
Tell me, are those scientists abiding the principles of science in assuming the existence of magnetic monopoles?
I assume they are, because the assumption that magnetic monopoles exist is based on the work done by theorists who have created the grand unified theory and even some string-theorists would agree that magnetic monopoles exist, but they don't have proof yet. It's kind of like the Higgs boson, but its existence has been observed which proved the theorists who believed in them correct. These scientists (physicists) believed that these particles exist because they believe that the math/logic that has gone into building the theories are true and tested.
This belief that the fundamental equations/logic that build up a theory is what I would describe as faith. I do understand that science does not end there. If science is done right, everytime a new observation is made the theories that the scientists believe in are re-examined for flaws and/or editing, so it's a faith that can change with the changing of accepted theories along with their underlying assumptions.
Not everything a scientist does or believes is part of science.
Yes, I think I am aware of distinguishing between what an individual scientist does or believes in with the work that they perform as a collective. The existence of magnetic monopoles is a based on a collective theory as I pointed out above.
if it takes faith, it's not science. Any assumptions scientists make are used, not believed.
I am going to assume that you mean "if it is based on faith, it's not science." Let me know if this is wrong, but if not, this is one place I disagree with you. I agree that not everything in science requires faith and that most things that are based on faith can not be considered a science. But at some fundamental level, I would argue that the logic/assumptions which the current scientific theories are based on have to be taken as they are, which is what I would consider to be faith.
Any assumption scientists make are used, but some are believed to be true or false until proven otherwise. The ideal gas law has been proven to be wrong so we don't have faith in it's exactness, but we still use it because under certain conditions it will give us a good approximation to the behavior of most inert gases, and I have faith that it's a good approximation. Which leads me to your next point.
My point was that merely using axioms is not faith. If it is, then everything we ever do is based on faith. It's a meaningless modifier, as it modifies nothing.
I would argue that using an axiom means one believes the axiom to be true, hence why it's called an axiom. From that axiom, one can then construct a theory or observed physical law, but, in science, that theory or law should always be questioned.
I think your next two sentences enlightens the core of our disagreement. You're right, I do believe everything we ever do, at its foundation, is based on faith; generally in the form of some underlying assumption that we agree with, like the math used to calculate physics. I believe that faith in other things can be constructed upon but remains only as the base. It can be changed, questioned, and even discarded as we learn. But I do not see faith as a meaningless modifier, because if you're not aware of its modification, it will go unnoticed and then I would consider it meaningless from that point of view. And that is where we differ. I've had a lot of fun discussing this topic and re-evaluating my beliefs, but like I said before we are going in a loop, because neither of us will let go of our respective beliefs. I just hope that maybe I've made you re-evaluate yours.
These sorts of arguments about the role of faith in science are generally terrible, but this was surprisingly mature. I'd never thought about mathematical postulates in that way before. Well done.
Continue to not think of them that way. Mathematical postulates are neither faith nor science.
I would argue that the entire discussion we're having now is exactly what they were covering in the video.
The difference is that you largely address my points; EC just claimed the moral high ground without addressing anything we said.
I assume they are, because the assumption that magnetic monopoles exist is based on the work done by theorists who have created the grand unified theory and even some string-theorists would agree that magnetic monopoles exist, but they don't have proof yet
-SNIP-
Yes, I think I am aware of distinguishing between what an individual scientist does or believes in with the work that they perform as a collective. The existence of magnetic monopoles is a based on a collective theory as I pointed out above.
Arguments from popularity are fallacious. It doesn't matter how many scientist believe it; it doesn't matter if that belief is based in part on current hypotheses; it doesn't matter if the existence of whatever it is must be true for the theory to work (which is often how these things go); if you make anything other than an tentative assumption, you are not doing science. You may be collecting evidence, you may be advancing our knowledge, but the thought process that leads you is not a scientific one. A tentative assumption, by definition, is not believed.
The ideal gas law has been proven to be wrong so we don't have faith in it's exactness, but we still use it because under certain conditions it will give us a good approximation to the behavior of most inert gases, and I have faith that it's a good approximation.
The assumption of ideality was always known to be false. I mean, one of the assumptions is that the molecules don't interact. That's a ridiculous assumption; chemistry is the science of interacting molecules.
I would argue that using an axiom means one believes the axiom to be true, hence why it's called an axiom. From that axiom, one can then construct a theory or observed physical law, but, in science, that theory or law should always be questioned.
In science, everything is questioned, including the underlying axioms.
In what sense do you mean the axioms is true? True in your model of reality? In that sense, it's true by definition. Or do you mean it's believed true objectively? They are two different things. Taking something as true for the purpose of modeling is not the same as believing something is true in reality. We've already shown that, many times: ideality assumptions in thermodynamics; assuming flat planes in euclidean geometry; assuming the lorentz factor is 1; etc. Even if we form a general unified theory, to use it we still have to make the assumption that there no other factor we have yet to discover. Everything in science is tentative.
I agree that not everything in science requires faith and that most things that are based on faith can not be considered a science.
-SNIP-
You're right, I do believe everything we ever do, at its foundation, is based on faith; generally in the form of some underlying assumption that we agree with, like the math used to calculate physics.
You contradict yourself here.
But I do not see faith as a meaningless modifier, because if you're not aware of its modification, it will go unnoticed and then I would consider it meaningless from that point of view.
That's just it; under your definition faith doesn't modify anything; "I have faith that 2+2=4" and "I have faith in Jesus" are equally valid statements.
Wow, this discussion is so entrenched in minutiae that it's hard to see what anyone's point is anymore.
That's just it; under your definition faith doesn't modify anything; "I have faith that 2+2=4" and "I have faith in Jesus" are equally valid statements.
This could still be a meaningful modifier because we are not mentioning the amount of faith involved in these statements, or rather we are assuming a false dichotomy of faith/no faith when it's really a matter of degrees.
I liken faith to the opposite of statistical confidence, or rather the amount of uncertainty we are willing to put up with. Physical science relies on very very high statistical confidence, to the point where the amount of "faith" they are willing to put up with is practically indistinguishable from nil (although it's my understanding that some fields, such as Biology, do not share the same rigor), whereas in day to day life we decide more intuitively how much confidence vs. faith we require to establish belief, and establish our own personal "models" to express that. Some people are more willing to put up with low confidence or establish unreasonable models of confidence for themselves, and some people are unwilling to put up with any less than the rigorous demands of science.
This could still be a meaningful modifier because we are not mentioning the amount of faith involved in these statements, or rather we are assuming a false dichotomy of faith/no faith when it's really a matter of degrees.
Right, so we aren't modifying anything. The definition that's been given (a definition which lumps together literally every sort of belief, including hypotheticals) does not present any possibility of a scale. The definition given equates faith with assumption. It absolutely modifies nothing. A modifier that modifies nothing is largely useless for anything else but confusing two different principles. In science, axioms are assumed tentatively. That's categorically different from assumptions believed true. It's not a matter of scale or degrees.
I liken faith to the opposite of statistical confidence, or rather the amount of uncertainty we are willing to put up with.
Tell that to the theist who are absolutely certain of their faith. "Certainty" and "faith" mix in very different ways; it's not a simple inverse relationship.
The reason why this discussion isn't progressing anywhere is because it deals with religious terminology which we know is murky beyond measure.
Nobody ever has ever defined what any religious term actually means, such as; religion, soul, god, holy spirit, kind, faith, heaven and hell.
There's propably a bunch more, but all of those words can be defined as the person wants and as such they are impossible subjects to talk about because no 2 people agree exactly what these words actually even mean. Because of this very nature of religious terminology, not even theistic scientists use them in their professional practice and this should explain why 'faith' is not a part of science.
The difference is that you largely address my points; EC just claimed the moral high ground without addressing anything we said.
Understood, I still disagree, but I've understood your point further.
Arguments from popularity are fallacious.
I was not trying to make an argument from popularity. I wasn't trying to say just because a group of scientists believe that their assumptions are correct or true then it must be scientific. What I was trying to do was to clarify that there exists a modern theory in current particle physics that has been worked on by many scientists who have used the evidence, have conducted experiments, and have formed and discarded hypotheses that are part of the theory as new evidence arises, which I think follows the way a scientific theory would work. An implication of using the logic that this theory is built upon is the existence of magnetic monopoles.
I was trying to use existence of magnetic monopoles as a simple way of making my point about theories using logic and assumptions that at their cores have an element which have to be taken as true in order for the entire theory to be constructed on top of it, and then calling that belief faith. I was trying to avoid having to clarify this point over and over. We can drop this example if you like.
if you make anything other than an tentative assumption, you are not doing science. You may be collecting evidence, you may be advancing our knowledge, but the thought process that leads you is not a scientific one. A tentative assumption, by definition, is not believed.
Two things I want to say about this argument:
1) I agree that science is not based on only tentative assumptions. There are other elements that make a science a science that we both agree with and you have described already.
2) I disagree with the last statement. I would argue that a tentative assumption would be an assumption that can be easily discarded. But whether or not it is believed is not part of its inherent definition. I would further argue that in science, the tentative assumption would be believed until it is either completely useless or the assumption does not fit the evidence gathered.
The assumption of ideality was always known to be false. I mean, one of the assumptions is that the molecules don't interact. That's a ridiculous assumption; chemistry is the science of interacting molecules.
All this is true, I was just trying to explain why the ideal gas law is still used even though most of it's assumptions are false and that the approximations you can make with it have this faith based quality of being somewhat accurate. The second sentence I don't quite follow. Physics also deals with interacting molecules, not in the same way as chemistry does, but it deals with them in certain fields.
In what sense do you mean the axioms is true? True in your model of reality? In that sense, it's true by definition. Or do you mean it's believed true objectively?
Objectively, or as objective as one can be with anything. I used that phrase you quoted in order to distinguish between axioms and assumptions. I felt that we were mixing the two interchangeably and they shouldn't be. Axioms can be considered assumptions, but not all assumptions can be considered axioms.
Even if we form a general unified theory, to use it we still have to make the assumption that there no other factor we have yet to discover. Everything in science is tentative.
Yeah, the grand unified theory is great in theory, but I see it as more of a table for all the elementary particles that make up our universe. I would argue it is still useful, but in its use there always the underlying caveat that it is likely incomplete and always will be. Again, I agree with your last statement.
You contradict yourself here.
You're right, I did and I apologize. Let me rephrase the first part that you quoted. I would argue that, at its foundation, science is based on a set of axioms and/or assumptions which just have to be taken as true in order for us to create the theories that they are built on top of. This is what I call the faith in science. From there, all the hypotheses, theories, and laws that are created in each of the fields of the sciences have to be based on the faith of the axiom underneath it. All these elements can be tested and re-examined as new observations are made, including the axiom themselves. If the axioms are ever wrong, true scientists would then need to find a new set of axioms to believe in which they can then use to construct a theory that follows all the observations that have been made. The faith that I keep describing does not have to be rigid or unchangeable, but it has to be placed somewhere.
I contradicted myself because I was trying to keep it a bit too simple.
That's just it; under your definition faith doesn't modify anything; "I have faith that 2+2=4" and "I have faith in Jesus" are equally valid statements.
You have stumbled upon my exact point. Those two statements are equally valid to me, but one is considered math and the other is considered faith in someone else (or if you're trying to link that statement to Christianity, it would be considered faith in one's religion). The axiom of the property of addition still has this little element which I would consider faith, and I would describe that faith to be the faith that 2+2=4 in our universe. Which I would also describe as "about as close to objective (having zero faith) as you can get."
I extend this view point to the sciences where faith in each of their current axioms is at their core, but if someone is trying to create a scientific hypothesis, assumption, theory, or fact they also need to meet the requirements of the scientific method before it can be called science. As I've agreed with you before, even the axioms can change too.
Also, under my definition faith would modify everything, but I don't see it as meaningless and I would cease to call it a modifier (from my point of view, from your point of view I think the term faith would still be considered a modifier).
To summarize, math is math, science is science and religion is religion. All of them have faith but to varying amounts. And all of them make valid claims in their respective areas, but whether you believe them or not is up to you.
(As an aside, I apologize to anyone who finds this wordiness difficult to follow. It's a bad habit of mine that I don't know if I want to get rid of.)
There's propably a bunch more, but all of those words can be defined as the person wants and as such they are impossible subjects to talk about because no 2 people agree exactly what these words actually even mean. Because of this very nature of religious terminology, not even theistic scientists use them in their professional practice and this should explain why 'faith' is not a part of science.
@ Hazunia
Very good point. I disagree with the last part, but good point.
An implication of using the logic that this theory is built upon is the existence of magnetic monopoles.
Yes, but we don't assume they exist, which you claimed here. The current theory indicates that they do, and they very well might, but to assume their existence outright rather than tentatively is not good science.
EDIT: Actually, that's not true. The standard model particle theory does not predict monopoles. The GUT and superstring theories do.
1) I agree that science is not based on only tentative assumptions. There are other elements that make a science a science that we both agree with and you have described already.
I didn't say it was. Science is not only tentative assumptions. But if the assumptions you're making are anything other than tentative, you are not doing science.
I would argue that a tentative assumption would be an assumption that can be easily discarded.
I'm not getting into another semantics debate. For the purpose of this discussion, when I say "tentative", please include "not believed" in the definition.
I would further argue that in science, the tentative assumption would be believed until it is either completely useless or the assumption does not fit the evidence gathered.
You would be wrong. It really is simple. If you believe you're assumptions are objectively true, you are not doing science. Every assumption science makes should not be believed on principle. It's simply bad form, and it hampers scientific progress. Yes, scientist sometimes believe the assumptions they're making. Those scientists are failing the principles of science.
Yeah, the grand unified theory is great in theory, but I see it as more of a table for all the elementary particles that make up our universe.
No. We call that the standard model. The GUT is something different
You have stumbled upon my exact point.
No I haven't. You've missed mine. The fact of the matter is, mathematic axioms are categorically different from religious faith. It's not a matter of scale. Mathamatic axioms are not to be believed true; they are to believed true only in the logical model.
The axiom of the property of addition still has this little element which I would consider faith, and I would describe that faith to be the faith that 2+2=4 in our universe
Even the axiomatic definition of addition isn't always true. Mixing 2 litres of water with 2 litres of ethanol will not give you 4 litres of fluid.
Also, under my definition faith would modify everything...
Look up the definition of modifier. If a modifier applies to everything, it's not a modifier. A modifier has to change the meaning. You're equating "faith" with "assumption". You can do that, all you want. But you strip any meaning away from the word "faith". You'd might as well drop the term entirely and just use "assumption".
To summarize, math is math, science is science and religion is religion. All of them have faith but to varying amounts
That's just the thing. We are not dealing with a difference in scale. Religious faith and mathematic axioms are categorically different. They have entirely different qualities. Mathematic axioms are only thought true within the given logical system. Religious faith is thought true objectively. You treating faith as a singular axis along which different beliefs fall, but, the fact of the matter is, the qualities of mathematic axioms do not fall on that axis.
EDIT:
The second sentence I don't quite follow. Physics also deals with interacting molecules, not in the same way as chemistry does, but it deals with them in certain fields.
Almost all of chemistry is based on molecules interacting. Even the chemistry that isn't based on that (physical chemistry, mostly) is used to describe the interaction of those molecules. To assume that the molecules don't interact is to assume that chemistry doesn't happen. It's a ridiculous assumption that was known to be entirely false from the get go. But it allows us to build models on what we could reasonably expect from systems under condition where there is little interactions, and then correct for the interactions later. It's not uncommon to make 4 or 5 wrong assumptions (all of them known to be false) towards this end.
Wow, this discussion is so entrenched in minutiae that it's hard to see what anyone's point is anymore.
That's just it; under your definition faith doesn't modify anything; "I have faith that 2+2=4" and "I have faith in Jesus" are equally valid statements.
This could still be a meaningful modifier because we are not mentioning the amount of faith involved in these statements, or rather we are assuming a false dichotomy of faith/no faith when it's really a matter of degrees.
...and so, in that scenario, statements like "I have faith that 2 + 2 = 4" and "I have faith in Jesus," are meaningless.
As an aside people should stop inserting math into this faith in science thing. 2 + 2 = 4 is provable. It's not evidenced, it's proven. It's not anywhere in the realm of evidence, trust, faith, likelyhood, etc.
I liken faith to the opposite of statistical confidence, or rather the amount of uncertainty we are willing to put up with. Physical science relies on very very high statistical confidence, to the point where the amount of "faith" they are willing to put up with is practically indistinguishable from nil (although it's my understanding that some fields, such as Biology, do not share the same rigor), whereas in day to day life we decide more intuitively how much confidence vs. faith we require to establish belief, and establish our own personal "models" to express that. Some people are more willing to put up with low confidence or establish unreasonable models of confidence for themselves, and some people are unwilling to put up with any less than the rigorous demands of science.
Using statistics to demonstrate the probability of something is 0.92 does not mean it is scientifically accepted as a fact, it only means it has a 0.92 probability of being correct.
Using statistics to demonstrate the probability of something is 0.99 does not mean it is scientifically accepted as a fact, it only means it has a 0.99 probability of being correct.
Using statistics to demonstrate the probability of something is 0.99999 does not mean it is scientifically accepted as a fact, it only means it has a 0.99999 probability of being correct.
You can push that number as close to 1 as you like, it doesn't matter.
There is never any need to "tolerate uncertainty" so that something something can be claimed to be proven. Not even a little bit. Nothing is ever proven.
But even it we do pretend 0.99999 probability is the same thing as one, that is quite a bit different from religious faith. That represents a tremendous amount of evidence something is true, the kind of evidence most people can't distinguish from proof without training in the field of statistics. It is not what EC described as "faith" and it would be dishonest to call it that.
@crayzz: I could say the same thing, or more specifically your obtuse insistence on such precise terminology, then turning around and twisting the meaning of something else to fit your ends, is actively inhibiting the exchange of ideas. I can only assume that you cannot engage the idea and so choose to attack and twist the words to undermine the concept presented.
Sorry, but I'm no academic or lawyer, and that's not a battle I care to fight, nor a is it a standard I care to hold myself to.
@The Paul: I do not understand why you are going on and on about proving things, I was talking about what we choose to rely on in everyday life as well as in other pursuits such as science. I agree that this is of course very different from pure mathematics as a concept, so perhaps that should not have been introduced in the first place. Although, a true philosopher may wish to expound on the given concept of "one" that is vital for the 2+2=4 proof, and to what extent that pure mathematics as a concept has any relevance to the concept of reality as we know it (although it is immensely useful to be sure).
@The Paul: I do not understand why you are going on and on about proving things, I was talking about what we choose to rely on in everyday life as well as in other pursuits such as science.
...but good science doesn't rely on things beyond their evidence level. If you demonstrate the probability of something 0.8 and you say to yourself, "Okay, that's probably true." that's not faith. That's just being able to recognize a pattern. For faith to be involved you'd have to say to yourself "Okay, that's definitely true."
And science never says that second one. It's more accurate to describe crossing an empty street as an act of faith than to describe scientific approaches to knowledge as faith. There's no point where the scientific method takes a something that's very very very etc likely to be true and says "Okay, close enough. 100% true." That last little bit of uncertainty you're saying it would take faith to fill up is simply never filled.
And again, that's actually the primary distinction between faith and rationalism. Rationalism comes out of the ability to simply accept uncertainty, to admit there are limits, to draw reasonable conclusions out as far as possible and no farther.
I agree that this is of course very different from pure mathematics as a concept, so perhaps that should not have been introduced in the first place. Although, a true philosopher may wish to expound on the given concept of "one" that is vital for the 2+2=4 proof, and to what extent that pure mathematics as a concept has any relevance to the concept of reality as we know it (although it is immensely useful to be sure).
The relevance of 2+2 = 4 doesn't have any bearing on it's truth. Aside from that though, every person alive thinks its relevant and philosophers who expound on it are kidding themselves.
@crayzz: I could say the same thing, or more specifically your obtuse insistence on such precise terminology...
Sorry, but I'm no academic or lawyer, and that's not a battle I care to fight, nor a is it a standard I care to hold myself to.
Are you going to adopt the stance you are simply incapable of having this conversation? Because that's probably something you can convince your opponents of.
It doesn't take any special training to use words consistently or to provide definitions for the word your arguing about.
If you're not willing to do it, you're just being lazy. If you're going to be lazy about this you're not going to get anywhere.
If you can't do it it's not because you failed to attend the national academy of fancy-talk. It's because you don't have a clear idea of what you're talking about. If you don't understand your own ideas you're going to have a very hard time convincing anyone else of them.
I could say the same thing, or more specifically your obtuse insistence on such precise terminology, then turning around and twisting the meaning of something else to fit your ends, is actively inhibiting the exchange of ideas.
You now what I love about these debates? How people don't bother to demonstrate how I've done anything wrong when they accuse me of something. I don't insist on precise terminology, I insist on consistent terminology, and definitions to match them. They can be as vague and imprecise as you want, though I will point out when your terms are so vague that they're useless, like I'm doing right now.
I can only assume that you cannot engage the idea and so choose to attack and twist the words to undermine the concept presented.
I twisted nothing. What you said was asinine, and my response stands. Care to show us otherwise?
Sorry, but I'm no academic or lawyer, and that's not a battle I care to fight, nor a is it a standard I care to hold myself to.
What standard? Making sure your modifiers actually modify? Making sure your definitions are consistent? It's not hard to do. It's not even something most people need to actively try to do, it's so easy.
Although, a true philosopher may wish to expound on the given concept of "one" that is vital for the 2+2=4 proof...
I'm not sure what a true philosopher is, but I'd hope they'd be capable of mastering the concept of integers.
Posts
Sorry, I didn't realize that we were expected to stop the conversation when you got bored of it.
@Muan
They get the credit for relentlessly promoting the idea, at the very least.
Ok, I see now. For the record, I was mostly asking for specifics because I was tired of reading other peoples vague protestations against my posts, some of which I tried to make very clear. Your post read as "smart people agree with me"; it's an argument I have little patience for.
While I can't comment on T.S. Elliot, I've read Lewis' opinions on secularism and they make me think he was never very secular. They read to me like they were written by someone who thought faith was totally awesome, but had trouble finding the right one. He doesn't seem to come from where I see things, which is the case for most (maybe all) religious apologia.
That's the thing: that continuity is not intellectual to me. Such a sense is very misplaced, when you stop to consider that most of history is lost to us. Such a continuity does not exist; only the illusion of one does.
I'd like to point out that those great thinker were not revered for their religious ideals. We know Newton for physics and calculus; Pythagoras for geometry; and Laplace for astronomy (among other things of course). We do not revere Newton's mistaken (and possibly apocryphal) belief that he'd demonstrated that god exists. We do not respect or admire Pythagoras's irrational belief that irrational numbers did not exist. We do not mention that Laplace was likely an atheist, despite his very catholic upbringing. What we respect about great thinkers and those thinker's religious beliefs are almost always very different things.
I would argue that faith is a poor way of dealing with the unknowable; given faiths tract record with what we can know (to reasonable certainty), I wouldn't trust faith in a field where it can't be tested.
Faith is a core part of what humanity is, and what defines us as individuals. Everyone, no matter their field or origin, has base beliefs at the core of their understanding. The very force that drove Extra Credit to make this video, is the one that fueled the very thing that they revile. The reason that this video was made was the Extra Credit staff's faith that anything is worth educated and calm discussion. The fuel behind the previous video's comments was the fundamental difference between the basis of faith in science and religion.
Religion often asks for faith in something that cannot be perceived, while science has the exact opposite, a faith in your perceptions.
I think what most of us as game designers, or as people, can take away from these videos is that differentiating faith often leads to heated discussions over fundamental beliefs that cannot be proven true or false, and thus must be handled delicately, or subtly so as not to cause direct conflict between those of different faith. Such conflict is pointless because neither faith is wrong, and thus no discussion of these faiths is likely to change those of another. If we instead challenge faith discretely, these essential cores, of who we are might grow and allow for the creation of new faiths, which will allow for new ideas in every aspect of humanity.
Faith is a core part of what humanity is, and what defines us as individuals. Everyone, no matter their field or origin, has base beliefs at the core of their understanding. The very force that drove Extra Credit to make this video, is the one that fueled the very thing that they revile. The reason that this video was made was the Extra Credit staff's faith that anything is worth educated and calm discussion. The fuel behind the previous video's comments was the fundamental difference between the basis of faith in science and religion.
Religion often asks for faith in something that cannot be perceived, while science has the exact opposite, a faith in your perceptions.
I think what most of us as game designers, or as people, can take away from these videos is that differentiating faith often leads to heated discussions over fundamental beliefs that cannot be proven true or false, and thus must be handled delicately, or subtly so as not to cause direct conflict between those of different faith. Such conflict is pointless because neither faith is wrong, and thus no discussion of these faiths is likely to change those of another. If we instead challenge faith discretely, these essential cores, of who we are might grow and allow for the creation of new faiths, which will allow for new ideas in every aspect of humanity.
I'm disappointed in you. Hell, I'm angry with you. You made a mistake in the prior video concerning the meaning of faith, and here you've simply repeated the error in more detail and as condescendingly as you could manage. You talk about people having a "knee-jerk" reaction to religion, and while I haven't read all of the comments, I can tell you I have yet to see anything like that. Most of the criticism has to do with you failing to understand what faith is and how something like science works. Faith is defined as complete or absolute trust and belief regardless of evidence. That is simply the definition (as it applies in this context). Science, however, rejects faith because it is intended to be constantly tested -- after all, strictly speaking science can only disprove its own ideas -- and is based *entirely* on evidence.
You use the example of Newtonian physics and say "we had faith in this", yet you fail to understand that that is the opposite of faith because when Newtonian physics were tested and found to not quite match the evidence it was replaced with a better model. That is completely counter to faith -- it shows a lack of absolute or complete trust and the acceptance of the theory was contingent on evidence. Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics is an example of faith because it is a rejection of a theory despite the evidence.
And no, a good scientist doesn't have faith in their perceptions -- all hypotheses must be tested and replicated by others. If results can be replicated and confirmed we are left with two options: either everyone's senses are all being fooled in the exact same way or our perceptions are correct. Reasonably, we go with the latter because it is far more likely. Assuming that our senses are generally accurate, and that the universe is governed by forces and laws which can be known is a basal assumption that has to be made in order for us to accomplish anything and is borne out by the evidence.
Making that mistake in the first place was understandable, and when I saw numerous commentors explaining it to you, I thought that would be the end of it. Instead you came back to the subject and demonstrated that you had either completely ignored much of the criticism or you fundamentally failed to understand it. That was not so understandable. Then you decided to be condescending about your response -- and THAT pissed me off. I know that by now you probably won't see this, let alone read it, but I hope you do and I want you to understand this.
I'm disappointed in you. Hell, I'm angry with you. You made a mistake in the prior video concerning the meaning of faith, and here you've simply repeated the error in more detail and as condescendingly as you could manage. You talk about people having a "knee-jerk" reaction to religion, and while I haven't read all of the comments, I can tell you I have yet to see anything like that. Most of the criticism has to do with you failing to understand what faith is and how something like science works. Faith is defined as complete or absolute trust and belief regardless of evidence. That is simply the definition (as it applies in this context). Science, however, rejects faith because it is intended to be constantly tested -- after all, strictly speaking science can only disprove its own ideas -- and is based *entirely* on evidence.
You use the example of Newtonian physics and say "we had faith in this", yet you fail to understand that that is the opposite of faith because when Newtonian physics were tested and found to not quite match the evidence it was replaced with a better model. That is completely counter to faith -- it shows a lack of absolute or complete trust and the acceptance of the theory was contingent on evidence. Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics is an example of faith because it is a rejection of a theory despite the evidence.
And no, a good scientist doesn't have faith in their perceptions -- all hypotheses must be tested and replicated by others. If results can be replicated and confirmed we are left with two options: either everyone's senses are all being fooled in the exact same way or our perceptions are correct. Reasonably, we go with the latter because it is far more likely. Assuming that our senses are generally accurate, and that the universe is governed by forces and laws which can be known is a basal assumption that has to be made in order for us to accomplish anything and is borne out by the evidence.
Making that mistake in the first place was understandable, and when I saw numerous commentors explaining it to you, I thought that would be the end of it. Instead you came back to the subject and demonstrated that you had either completely ignored much of the criticism or you fundamentally failed to understand it. That was not so understandable. Then you decided to be condescending about your response -- and THAT pissed me off. I know that by now you probably won't see this, let alone read it, but I hope you do and I want you to understand this.
Alright, since some of you seem to refuse the very CONCEPT of science having anything at all to do with faith, let me break it down in four sentences.
Relying on observations to arrive at conclusions mandates that you assume your observations are valid. Assuming something is true with no evidence is faith. You can not derive evidence if observations are not reliable. Since you can not prove your observations are reliable, and since believing they are anyway without evidence (which you are denied by senses of unverifiable accuracy) is an act of faith, it follows logically that using observations to come to conclusions is an act of faith.
You do realize that observations that are documented and peer-reviewed / replicated ARE evidence in science? Therefore you're asking for evidence for evidence, which is nonsensical. It's not really all that different from deviding by zero in math.
Even if our senses are fooled by an artificial computer, feeding signals to a brain in a vat, observations regarding the existance as we know it still holds true. It doesn't really matter to science if what we're observing is real or not as long as your observations are accurate scientifically speaking, not existancially speaking and this we can verify through calibrations, standardizations, using control samples and through peer-review / replication of the results independently.
Evidence is generally concidered to be self evident, ergo evidence cannot be not evidence.
Therefore evidence = evidence of evidence in itself, ergo evidence = evidence.
Thus we can conclude that evidence =/= not evidence
Thus your demand for evidence for observations, which are evidence in themselves, is nonsensical and childish.
There's no magical number of times you can repeat this where it suddenly becomes true.
Faith may be a core part of you, it may define you as an individual...
...but I am not you. Lots of people are like that, actually.
1) No it doesn't.
2) Someone has explained that it doesn't every other page of this thread or so
3) The rest of your argument relies on conflating "proof" and "evidence," which are different words with different meanings.
4) Thanks for showing off that you can't have been bothered to read people's objections before responding to them.
Oh, is that how it works? Awesome! I'm gonna go get really high and hallucinate some unicorns. Those damn elitist biologists can't question me; they just have to assume my observation was valid!!
I think you're misunderstanding was the EC team is saying here. Faith is not "complete or absolute trust and belief regardless of evidence." That definition is actually closer to dogmatism, which is NOT the same as faith. One can have faith without being dogmatic about it. Merriam-Webster defines faith as:
"1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs"
So in this case, faith is the belief in something that has no proof, not tightly holding onto your beliefs no matter what the evidence says. That's dogmatism. Also note that this branch of the definition has meaning outside of religion.
Faith can evolve. Faith does not have to be ridged, as you seem to suggest. While I can't speak to the truth of everything the EC team said, what they said about geometry, and math in general, is correct. While some things can be proven, many of our equations that we use to procure "evidence" are true simply by way of not yet being proven false. Say what you will, but from where I'm standing, that sounds like belief in the absence of definitive proof.
This is a response to everyone that said it: The EC team was not trying to be condescending. It's unfortunate that so many people on this thread have felt that way. All they were doing was putting their two cents in, the way all of us are doing; and they were only trying to get us to see their side of it, not lord their position over us as the best or only one. They looked at the threads, and saw people being hostile towards the idea that faith is a part of science, or even being human, which it totally is. Let me give an example that has been listed before:
Love. While you may be able to offer some "evidence" (the way someone looks at you, gift exchanging, physical contact), none of those can prove love exists. And many people belief it doesn't. Both the belief in and denial of love are faiths. You can say this about almost anything that would require faith. Atheism takes just as much faith as Buddhism, Christianity, or Islamism. Furthermore, when you go to bed at night, do you not assume you will wake up in the morning? Belief without proof. That's faith. And that's all the EC team was trying to get at.
While science takes all evidence into account, tests things countless times, and ultimately evolves, that does not mean faith has no place. Somewhere along the way to any great discovery, someone had an idea they believed in. Maybe it was proven true, maybe false, but if they never thought for a moment it might be true, why were they even researching it? But that can easily be ripped apart and ultimately doesn't matter. The point is that once we find a system that works, we believe in it until a new system shows up that works better. Sometimes the "proof" we have is erroneous. In fact, over time many of our truths are rewritten. "Proof" is not always as sound as it sounds. So maybe that doesn't fit in exactly with the definition of belief in the absence of proof. But sometimes investing in proof takes a little bit of faith. The EC team wasn't saying that the basis of EVERYTHING is faith, but that most endeavors, scientific or otherwise, take a grain of faith or two somewhere along the line.
No offense intended. No condescension intended. Just the way I see things.
And bigots aren't usually trying to be hateful. What EC tried doing doesn't actually matter. What they did do was argue against criticism that most detractors did not put forward. They dismissed 95% of the arguments that was offered against them, without even mentioning the arguments, while scolding us for being dogmatic. That is absolutely condescending.
The rest of your post has already been addressed ad nauseum in the thread.
I agree with some of what you're saying that "assuming something is true is not an act of faith" and your example makes a valid point, but i disagree slightly. I believe that assuming something is true is not "always" an act of faith, but it usually is; especially when there's no proof or evidence. The point that you made is definitely an exception, i.e. when someone assumes something to be true in order to prove that it is in fact untrue. But at that point, I wouldn't call whatever that person believes to be true as "faith." That just one of my cents, take it as you will.
@crayzz
Is it really that condescending that they couldn't cover every single argument made against them that the forum/comment section made about their previous video and then cram it into a video that was under 10 minutes? (watches video again) I like to think not, but I could be wrong. In my opinion, I feel that they were just using this video to reiterate the claim they made that science isn't completely devoid of an element that can be described as faith and to open people up to that concept. My second cent.
I for one think it has some basis, but I do feel that science, which is done right, does a very good job of minimizing any element of whatever this "faith" might have on any of its final conclusions. This generally comes in the form of stated assumptions, peer review, and reproduction of any and all proofs and/or experiments by other parties, etc. Furthermore, I feel that science's "faith" in its assumptions and its observed laws are always under scrutiny, ready to be exchanged/upgraded to new ones when new and tested data comes in. Which is why I place my faith in science than in any particular religion, but I try to keep myself open to the ideas of others. My third cent, thank you for your time.
They didn't address most of the arguments against them. They, instead, addressed a very narrow subsection of the arguments. So narrow, in fact, that I didn't actually see anyone making that argument. EC also claimed we were being dogmatic in not considering their arguments, despite us most of us addressing them specifically and despite EC dismissing ours without consideration. Yes, that's condescending.
Unless you're going to define faith in an extremely general way, such that any belief of any sort, ever, is based on faith, science done right has no faith. Anywhere. Axiomatic assumptions are not examples of "faith". The assumptions are used, not believed true.
I am unfortunately unable to read every single argument that was made against EC on their previous video, so I will consider your view point to be one valid point of view. However, I'm still sticking to my point that it is really difficult to go over every counterargument in detail within a 10-minute video. This video would have to be hours long in order to pose counters for all the arguments against it, and I don't think EC team has the time for that. I will say that you are right that they did address only a very small part of their argument against them and generalized them, but I still believe they did that in order to reiterate their point of view for everyone's consideration. In summary, I agree with you that this video can be seen as condescending, but I don't feel that way about this video.
In reply to your second paragraph, my answer is yes, kind of. I am using faith in an extremely general way that is devoid of its connection to religion. I would describe it to be someone's belief that something is true or not true without proof or evidence. I still feel that some assumptions in science are believed to be true until proven otherwise, and I agree with you that some assumptions are just there to be used and shouldn't be described as faith. However for some kind of assumptions, that belief can be perceived as a form of faith by other people, including myself. I would also stretch this definition to some axiomatic assumptions, and because of this I disagree with the absolutist nature of your argument.
I'm not saying they need to. I'm saying that if EC going to make a response to us, they should address the arguments most of us made, rather than some near non-existent subsection.
It still doesn't apply to science, unless is also applies to literally every type of belief, including hypotheticals.
I don't care about your feelings.
Such as?
You could do that. It's not very reasonable though. We don't have "faith" that gases behave ideally. They don't. We know they don't. We use the assumption of ideality to get us close enough to work with gaseous systems. If using an assumption you know if entirely false is an example of faith, then you're definition of "faith" is so general that it's meaningless. And even if you want to use that definition of faith, it's still dishonest to equate that "faith" with religious faith, which is exactly what EC is trying to do.
I don't know how to use the quote system, so I'll respond to each of your points using numbers if you don't mind.
1) I think I'm understanding your point a bit more. If I were to summarize your opinion like so, "The EC team should have been more thorough in their counterarguments, if they were going to respond to us at all." Would that be correct?
2) In that particular statement, I was trying to clarify my definition, which I defined in the following statement. To answer your follow-up question, I think my definition can apply to some theories in science and it can apply to some generic beliefs on a case-by-case basis. Most hypotheticals are the type of assumptions that are devoid of faith. But faith in a belief such as that can also depend on the person who believes it.
3) Let me rephrase that statement from "I still feel that some" to "I would argue that most." I'm sorry that you did not accept my feelings, but thanks for pointing that out.
4) The existence of magnetic monopoles. Some scientists believe that they exist and are looking for evidence of their existence, but none has been observed yet. I could see how someone would describe that belief to have some element of what they call "faith." I see them as the new neutrinos.
5) Yes, I would also consider the ideal gas law to be an example were an assumption is made where faith is not involved. Mostly because we already know it to be untrue as you point out. Another example would be the assumptions of frictionless surfaces and no air resistance used in simple dynamics problems. So we agree on that, and that's fine. What I'm trying to argue is that having the perception that a few aspects of science has some element to it that can be described as faith is a valid viewpoint. Unfortunately, I feel that we are at a stand-off where we disagree on a fundamental level and will only go in a loop, but I thank you for this discussion. Although, I don't mind continuing for a bit longer.
Also, let me rephrase that last statement you quoted, I used the word "definition" when I meant to say "perception." I didn't need to stretch my definition any further.
"dogmatism" has additional implications that aren't really relevant to the conversation. The correct word here is not "dogmatism" it is "faith."
That's just not true. They didn't just put their ideas out there and shrug their shoulders when people disagree with them. They put their ideas out there and then, when people disagreed with them, they complained about how disappointed they were in everyone who didn't agree.
Not disappointed that their ideas weren't accepted, mind you. Disappointed in their viewers for not accepting them.
Maybe they didn't mean to be condescending, but it's hard to be that condescending by accident.
Word games are not impressive. If you're using the colloquial definition of prove your statement is false. If you're using the strict definition is is technically true but about as meaningful as saying "You can't fix a car by enpurpling it."
Bearing in mind that there are over six billion people in the world, and that nearly any strange belief you can imagine is probably held by someone, so we can't use a word like "many" to mean something like "more than six"... you're just wrong.
You've been trained to think "You can't prove love," is a meaningful argument, and you're being confronted with the fact it's not, and now you're making absurd claims, things you don't even really believe, to spare yourself from having to recognize that.
That's dogmatism.
No. It was condescending to dismiss all criticism as a disappointing knee-jerk reaction anyway.
Use BB code, if you care to. It's not a big thing; it just makes responses easier to read. You can also use some keyboard shortcuts [like CTRL-Q for blockquoting] if you're posting via the forums.
No. You're close. EC should have addressed the very common and quite consistent criticism that was put forward, since the point of this video was to address what most of us detractors were saying. It's not a matter of thoroughness (though, yes, some thoroughness would have helped) it's a matter of intellectual dishonesty.
Tell me, are those scientists abiding the principles of science in assuming the existence of magnetic monopoles? Not everything a scientist does or believes is part of science. This is an example of that.
Ok, listen: if it takes faith, it's not science. Any assumptions scientists make are used, not believed. If you actually start to believe the assumptions you're using, you're not doing science. Or rather, you're not doing it well.
That doesn't make your definition any more reasonable, though. My point was that merely using axioms is not faith. If it is, then everything we ever do is based on faith. It's a meaningless modifier, as it modifies nothing.
EDIT:
@The%20Paul,
For some. For a couple of people so entrenched in their own ideas that they completely missed 90% of the criticism against them, I'd imagine it's quite easy.
Thanks for the link.
Thanks for clarifying. I think I understand your point of view on that, but I still don't agree with it. I would argue that the entire discussion we're having now is exactly what they were covering in the video.
I assume they are, because the assumption that magnetic monopoles exist is based on the work done by theorists who have created the grand unified theory and even some string-theorists would agree that magnetic monopoles exist, but they don't have proof yet. It's kind of like the Higgs boson, but its existence has been observed which proved the theorists who believed in them correct. These scientists (physicists) believed that these particles exist because they believe that the math/logic that has gone into building the theories are true and tested.
This belief that the fundamental equations/logic that build up a theory is what I would describe as faith. I do understand that science does not end there. If science is done right, everytime a new observation is made the theories that the scientists believe in are re-examined for flaws and/or editing, so it's a faith that can change with the changing of accepted theories along with their underlying assumptions.
Yes, I think I am aware of distinguishing between what an individual scientist does or believes in with the work that they perform as a collective. The existence of magnetic monopoles is a based on a collective theory as I pointed out above.
I am going to assume that you mean "if it is based on faith, it's not science." Let me know if this is wrong, but if not, this is one place I disagree with you. I agree that not everything in science requires faith and that most things that are based on faith can not be considered a science. But at some fundamental level, I would argue that the logic/assumptions which the current scientific theories are based on have to be taken as they are, which is what I would consider to be faith.
Any assumption scientists make are used, but some are believed to be true or false until proven otherwise. The ideal gas law has been proven to be wrong so we don't have faith in it's exactness, but we still use it because under certain conditions it will give us a good approximation to the behavior of most inert gases, and I have faith that it's a good approximation. Which leads me to your next point.
I would argue that using an axiom means one believes the axiom to be true, hence why it's called an axiom. From that axiom, one can then construct a theory or observed physical law, but, in science, that theory or law should always be questioned.
I think your next two sentences enlightens the core of our disagreement. You're right, I do believe everything we ever do, at its foundation, is based on faith; generally in the form of some underlying assumption that we agree with, like the math used to calculate physics. I believe that faith in other things can be constructed upon but remains only as the base. It can be changed, questioned, and even discarded as we learn. But I do not see faith as a meaningless modifier, because if you're not aware of its modification, it will go unnoticed and then I would consider it meaningless from that point of view. And that is where we differ. I've had a lot of fun discussing this topic and re-evaluating my beliefs, but like I said before we are going in a loop, because neither of us will let go of our respective beliefs. I just hope that maybe I've made you re-evaluate yours.
Continue to not think of them that way. Mathematical postulates are neither faith nor science.
Arguments from popularity are fallacious. It doesn't matter how many scientist believe it; it doesn't matter if that belief is based in part on current hypotheses; it doesn't matter if the existence of whatever it is must be true for the theory to work (which is often how these things go); if you make anything other than an tentative assumption, you are not doing science. You may be collecting evidence, you may be advancing our knowledge, but the thought process that leads you is not a scientific one. A tentative assumption, by definition, is not believed.
The assumption of ideality was always known to be false. I mean, one of the assumptions is that the molecules don't interact. That's a ridiculous assumption; chemistry is the science of interacting molecules.
In science, everything is questioned, including the underlying axioms.
In what sense do you mean the axioms is true? True in your model of reality? In that sense, it's true by definition. Or do you mean it's believed true objectively? They are two different things. Taking something as true for the purpose of modeling is not the same as believing something is true in reality. We've already shown that, many times: ideality assumptions in thermodynamics; assuming flat planes in euclidean geometry; assuming the lorentz factor is 1; etc. Even if we form a general unified theory, to use it we still have to make the assumption that there no other factor we have yet to discover. Everything in science is tentative.
You contradict yourself here.
That's just it; under your definition faith doesn't modify anything; "I have faith that 2+2=4" and "I have faith in Jesus" are equally valid statements.
This could still be a meaningful modifier because we are not mentioning the amount of faith involved in these statements, or rather we are assuming a false dichotomy of faith/no faith when it's really a matter of degrees.
I liken faith to the opposite of statistical confidence, or rather the amount of uncertainty we are willing to put up with. Physical science relies on very very high statistical confidence, to the point where the amount of "faith" they are willing to put up with is practically indistinguishable from nil (although it's my understanding that some fields, such as Biology, do not share the same rigor), whereas in day to day life we decide more intuitively how much confidence vs. faith we require to establish belief, and establish our own personal "models" to express that. Some people are more willing to put up with low confidence or establish unreasonable models of confidence for themselves, and some people are unwilling to put up with any less than the rigorous demands of science.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Right, so we aren't modifying anything. The definition that's been given (a definition which lumps together literally every sort of belief, including hypotheticals) does not present any possibility of a scale. The definition given equates faith with assumption. It absolutely modifies nothing. A modifier that modifies nothing is largely useless for anything else but confusing two different principles. In science, axioms are assumed tentatively. That's categorically different from assumptions believed true. It's not a matter of scale or degrees.
Tell that to the theist who are absolutely certain of their faith. "Certainty" and "faith" mix in very different ways; it's not a simple inverse relationship.
Nobody ever has ever defined what any religious term actually means, such as; religion, soul, god, holy spirit, kind, faith, heaven and hell.
There's propably a bunch more, but all of those words can be defined as the person wants and as such they are impossible subjects to talk about because no 2 people agree exactly what these words actually even mean. Because of this very nature of religious terminology, not even theistic scientists use them in their professional practice and this should explain why 'faith' is not a part of science.
Understood, I still disagree, but I've understood your point further.
I was not trying to make an argument from popularity. I wasn't trying to say just because a group of scientists believe that their assumptions are correct or true then it must be scientific. What I was trying to do was to clarify that there exists a modern theory in current particle physics that has been worked on by many scientists who have used the evidence, have conducted experiments, and have formed and discarded hypotheses that are part of the theory as new evidence arises, which I think follows the way a scientific theory would work. An implication of using the logic that this theory is built upon is the existence of magnetic monopoles.
I was trying to use existence of magnetic monopoles as a simple way of making my point about theories using logic and assumptions that at their cores have an element which have to be taken as true in order for the entire theory to be constructed on top of it, and then calling that belief faith. I was trying to avoid having to clarify this point over and over. We can drop this example if you like.
Two things I want to say about this argument:
1) I agree that science is not based on only tentative assumptions. There are other elements that make a science a science that we both agree with and you have described already.
2) I disagree with the last statement. I would argue that a tentative assumption would be an assumption that can be easily discarded. But whether or not it is believed is not part of its inherent definition. I would further argue that in science, the tentative assumption would be believed until it is either completely useless or the assumption does not fit the evidence gathered.
All this is true, I was just trying to explain why the ideal gas law is still used even though most of it's assumptions are false and that the approximations you can make with it have this faith based quality of being somewhat accurate. The second sentence I don't quite follow. Physics also deals with interacting molecules, not in the same way as chemistry does, but it deals with them in certain fields.
Objectively, or as objective as one can be with anything. I used that phrase you quoted in order to distinguish between axioms and assumptions. I felt that we were mixing the two interchangeably and they shouldn't be. Axioms can be considered assumptions, but not all assumptions can be considered axioms.
Yeah, the grand unified theory is great in theory, but I see it as more of a table for all the elementary particles that make up our universe. I would argue it is still useful, but in its use there always the underlying caveat that it is likely incomplete and always will be. Again, I agree with your last statement.
You're right, I did and I apologize. Let me rephrase the first part that you quoted. I would argue that, at its foundation, science is based on a set of axioms and/or assumptions which just have to be taken as true in order for us to create the theories that they are built on top of. This is what I call the faith in science. From there, all the hypotheses, theories, and laws that are created in each of the fields of the sciences have to be based on the faith of the axiom underneath it. All these elements can be tested and re-examined as new observations are made, including the axiom themselves. If the axioms are ever wrong, true scientists would then need to find a new set of axioms to believe in which they can then use to construct a theory that follows all the observations that have been made. The faith that I keep describing does not have to be rigid or unchangeable, but it has to be placed somewhere.
I contradicted myself because I was trying to keep it a bit too simple.
You have stumbled upon my exact point. Those two statements are equally valid to me, but one is considered math and the other is considered faith in someone else (or if you're trying to link that statement to Christianity, it would be considered faith in one's religion). The axiom of the property of addition still has this little element which I would consider faith, and I would describe that faith to be the faith that 2+2=4 in our universe. Which I would also describe as "about as close to objective (having zero faith) as you can get."
I extend this view point to the sciences where faith in each of their current axioms is at their core, but if someone is trying to create a scientific hypothesis, assumption, theory, or fact they also need to meet the requirements of the scientific method before it can be called science. As I've agreed with you before, even the axioms can change too.
Also, under my definition faith would modify everything, but I don't see it as meaningless and I would cease to call it a modifier (from my point of view, from your point of view I think the term faith would still be considered a modifier).
To summarize, math is math, science is science and religion is religion. All of them have faith but to varying amounts. And all of them make valid claims in their respective areas, but whether you believe them or not is up to you.
(As an aside, I apologize to anyone who finds this wordiness difficult to follow. It's a bad habit of mine that I don't know if I want to get rid of.)
Very good point. I disagree with the last part, but good point.
Yes, but we don't assume they exist, which you claimed here. The current theory indicates that they do, and they very well might, but to assume their existence outright rather than tentatively is not good science.
EDIT: Actually, that's not true. The standard model particle theory does not predict monopoles. The GUT and superstring theories do.
I didn't say it was. Science is not only tentative assumptions. But if the assumptions you're making are anything other than tentative, you are not doing science.
I'm not getting into another semantics debate. For the purpose of this discussion, when I say "tentative", please include "not believed" in the definition.
You would be wrong. It really is simple. If you believe you're assumptions are objectively true, you are not doing science. Every assumption science makes should not be believed on principle. It's simply bad form, and it hampers scientific progress. Yes, scientist sometimes believe the assumptions they're making. Those scientists are failing the principles of science.
No. We call that the standard model. The GUT is something different
No I haven't. You've missed mine. The fact of the matter is, mathematic axioms are categorically different from religious faith. It's not a matter of scale. Mathamatic axioms are not to be believed true; they are to believed true only in the logical model.
Even the axiomatic definition of addition isn't always true. Mixing 2 litres of water with 2 litres of ethanol will not give you 4 litres of fluid.
Look up the definition of modifier. If a modifier applies to everything, it's not a modifier. A modifier has to change the meaning. You're equating "faith" with "assumption". You can do that, all you want. But you strip any meaning away from the word "faith". You'd might as well drop the term entirely and just use "assumption".
That's just the thing. We are not dealing with a difference in scale. Religious faith and mathematic axioms are categorically different. They have entirely different qualities. Mathematic axioms are only thought true within the given logical system. Religious faith is thought true objectively. You treating faith as a singular axis along which different beliefs fall, but, the fact of the matter is, the qualities of mathematic axioms do not fall on that axis.
EDIT:
Almost all of chemistry is based on molecules interacting. Even the chemistry that isn't based on that (physical chemistry, mostly) is used to describe the interaction of those molecules. To assume that the molecules don't interact is to assume that chemistry doesn't happen. It's a ridiculous assumption that was known to be entirely false from the get go. But it allows us to build models on what we could reasonably expect from systems under condition where there is little interactions, and then correct for the interactions later. It's not uncommon to make 4 or 5 wrong assumptions (all of them known to be false) towards this end.
...and so, in that scenario, statements like "I have faith that 2 + 2 = 4" and "I have faith in Jesus," are meaningless.
As an aside people should stop inserting math into this faith in science thing. 2 + 2 = 4 is provable. It's not evidenced, it's proven. It's not anywhere in the realm of evidence, trust, faith, likelyhood, etc.
Using statistics to demonstrate the probability of something is 0.92 does not mean it is scientifically accepted as a fact, it only means it has a 0.92 probability of being correct.
Using statistics to demonstrate the probability of something is 0.99 does not mean it is scientifically accepted as a fact, it only means it has a 0.99 probability of being correct.
Using statistics to demonstrate the probability of something is 0.99999 does not mean it is scientifically accepted as a fact, it only means it has a 0.99999 probability of being correct.
You can push that number as close to 1 as you like, it doesn't matter.
There is never any need to "tolerate uncertainty" so that something something can be claimed to be proven. Not even a little bit. Nothing is ever proven.
But even it we do pretend 0.99999 probability is the same thing as one, that is quite a bit different from religious faith. That represents a tremendous amount of evidence something is true, the kind of evidence most people can't distinguish from proof without training in the field of statistics. It is not what EC described as "faith" and it would be dishonest to call it that.
Sorry, but I'm no academic or lawyer, and that's not a battle I care to fight, nor a is it a standard I care to hold myself to.
@The Paul: I do not understand why you are going on and on about proving things, I was talking about what we choose to rely on in everyday life as well as in other pursuits such as science. I agree that this is of course very different from pure mathematics as a concept, so perhaps that should not have been introduced in the first place. Although, a true philosopher may wish to expound on the given concept of "one" that is vital for the 2+2=4 proof, and to what extent that pure mathematics as a concept has any relevance to the concept of reality as we know it (although it is immensely useful to be sure).
And science never says that second one. It's more accurate to describe crossing an empty street as an act of faith than to describe scientific approaches to knowledge as faith. There's no point where the scientific method takes a something that's very very very etc likely to be true and says "Okay, close enough. 100% true." That last little bit of uncertainty you're saying it would take faith to fill up is simply never filled.
And again, that's actually the primary distinction between faith and rationalism. Rationalism comes out of the ability to simply accept uncertainty, to admit there are limits, to draw reasonable conclusions out as far as possible and no farther.
It's going farther that takes faith.
The relevance of 2+2 = 4 doesn't have any bearing on it's truth. Aside from that though, every person alive thinks its relevant and philosophers who expound on it are kidding themselves.
Are you going to adopt the stance you are simply incapable of having this conversation? Because that's probably something you can convince your opponents of.
It doesn't take any special training to use words consistently or to provide definitions for the word your arguing about.
If you're not willing to do it, you're just being lazy. If you're going to be lazy about this you're not going to get anywhere.
If you can't do it it's not because you failed to attend the national academy of fancy-talk. It's because you don't have a clear idea of what you're talking about. If you don't understand your own ideas you're going to have a very hard time convincing anyone else of them.
You now what I love about these debates? How people don't bother to demonstrate how I've done anything wrong when they accuse me of something. I don't insist on precise terminology, I insist on consistent terminology, and definitions to match them. They can be as vague and imprecise as you want, though I will point out when your terms are so vague that they're useless, like I'm doing right now.
I twisted nothing. What you said was asinine, and my response stands. Care to show us otherwise?
What standard? Making sure your modifiers actually modify? Making sure your definitions are consistent? It's not hard to do. It's not even something most people need to actively try to do, it's so easy.
I'm not sure what a true philosopher is, but I'd hope they'd be capable of mastering the concept of integers.