The belief of science and the science of belief
Sunday, January 3, 2010 at 10:46PM This morning as I was sweating my way on a mountainbike ride through Lourensrod I had a very interesting and thought provoking conversation. On today's ride we had a doctor, a theoretical mathematician, an engineer and myself. I know that at least two of us (myself and the doctor) are people of faith - I am not sure about the other two guys.
As we commonly do on such rides we discussed a variety of topics (from the correct rebound on a full suspension bike, to the best cadence for slippery climbs, and of course the more serious stuff like the cricket test!) Among the topics discussed this morning was the relationship between faith and science. One of the guys was talking about a particular granite rock formation that seemed out of place in the middle of a whole host of 'Table Mountain limestone' (most of the mountains in our area are limestone). This huge granite rock outcrop is quite out of place! It is a single massive rock formation with no other evidence of granite in the surrounding area.
As we discussed the various theories of how the rock formation came to be I jokingly said 'I think the farmer had it delivered overnight by helicopter'. There was a bit of laughter, and then one of the guys said something along the lines of 'stranger things have happened! But how would we know if it is true?'
This was where we entered into a long conversation on the nature of belief, and the difference between science as a supposedly epistemological discipline and faith as a phenomenological discipline. I could see that the engineer and mathematician had never considered that science is as dependent on faith as religion is.
Science is based upon assumptions which one then attempts to prove by repeatedly testing the assumptions with which one began. For example, when we say that something weights 1 kilogram the only way that we can prove it is to verify our claim or assumption by repeated proof. So for example you may cut a piece of cheese that you believe weighs 1kg, and then cut a piece that is twice the size, then cut the 2kg piece into two piece and see whether the first piece, and the two new pieces all have the same mass (even if their dimensions differ).
If enough people agree with your verified findings your assumption becomes the accepted starting point for future experiments (at least until someone finds fault with your theory, or improves upon it).
Another example is the measurement of time (as discussed in the previous post on this blog). Time is not an a-priori reality that is part of the ontological fabric of reality. Rather, our measurement of the space between a sequence of events is our conscious attempt to link elements in a manner that is both sensible and measurable. Thus, when enough people agree on the measurement of a particular space of time (i.e., 1 minute = 60 seconds) it is the common agreement that gives the measurement worth. The measurement has no value outside of the agreement (thus the value of the agreement is held by those who 'believe' it to be true or correct).
That kind of sounds like faith to me! Truth is not always true. Scientists (and religious persons) have frequently had to adapt their fundamental theories in the light of scientific, historical, or philosophical discoveries.
So, as we struggled our way up another hill (in absolutely perfect riding weather!) we all agreed that science has an element of belief or faith attached to it. We also agreed that there are certain instances under which the collective belief of a group of persons (based on their repeatable experience) could be grounds for science (as is frequently the case in unexplained physical cures as a result of prayer).
I'd love to hear your thoughts! You don't even have to follow me up the mountain to share them - just type a comment below, or drop me an email.
Reader Comments (3)
I've been engaged in a similar discuission about whether the "laws of nature" are prescriptive or descriptive. Some anti-theist types say that they must be descriptive because if they are prescriptive it implies a prescriber. I also say that they are descriptive, and that that implies that there is a describer - man. That seems similar to what you were saying.
so truth may not be truth for all people, is that not bordering on relativism?
Anyway. happy New year Dion. Blessings for you and your family.
Regards
Simon.
P.S. If you really feel like digging deep on the nature of belief, google the name "Henry Scougal" and download his book on "The nature of belief in the soul of man" rivieting stuff.
Sure, science requires "faith" of a kind. The problem of the existence of the external world, for example, has not been resolved satisfactorily. So science, as it were, have to assume (hope, have faith) that the external world exists. Religion, I should point out though, requires several additional large leaps of faith. There is no good reason to think any Gods exist, nor do we have any idea what characteristics they may have or what they demand of us. A religious person, then, must have a hell of a lot more faith than non-believers. I, for one, don't find it too hard to believe, say, that the sun will rise tomorrow (or that there IS a sun outside my mind). I find the notion of a invisible wizard in the sky who is obsessed with what I do with my genitals quite a bit more difficult to believe in.
"Truth is not always true."? Not sure what that means. What we believe to be true isn't always true. But, by definition, what is true is true.