This is an excerpt from the book Scientific Method In Practice by Hugh Gauch pp 151-152:
I've seen a similar claim made by many theists, creationists in particular, that "science also relies on faith!", which is usually employed to try and lower science to the same level as religion. But, if faith is defined as "complete trust or confidence in someone or something" (which is a rather common definition as a matter of fact), then, I can see how some of them would equate the presuppositions science must make in order to work as being taken on faith.
Where I see the difference between how faith is used in a religious sense vs the scientific sense described above is that the necessary presuppositions that science makes, while unprovable, are validated in a certain sense because science works when we take them and doesn't when we abandon them. That being the case, I question the use of the word "faith" in the context of science. What do you think?
Quote:Obviously, the philosophical reasoning that proves that "the physical world does exist" is unprovable likewise proves that "sense perceptions are generally reliable" and "inductive logic works" are forever unprovable. So science is pervaded by numerous global presuppositions. However, "global presuppositions" is a tedious phrase, so an equivalent brief word may be desired that means a belief held without possibility of proof. Such exists. It is the word "faith". Science rests on faith. Without this faith, technology's progress is still viable, but science's truth is undone.
Intellectuals accustomed to the pat formula that "science has facts but religion has faith" may be shocked to see that science also has faith. Nevertheless, science is built on faith. If scientists rarely grasp or even sometimes contradict this, all that proves is that many scientists have a superficial understanding of their discipline's foundations. For scientists, seeing a coin in a cup counts as definite evidence for the conclusion that "there is a coin in the cup" precisely only, and decidedly because of scientific faith.
I've seen a similar claim made by many theists, creationists in particular, that "science also relies on faith!", which is usually employed to try and lower science to the same level as religion. But, if faith is defined as "complete trust or confidence in someone or something" (which is a rather common definition as a matter of fact), then, I can see how some of them would equate the presuppositions science must make in order to work as being taken on faith.
Where I see the difference between how faith is used in a religious sense vs the scientific sense described above is that the necessary presuppositions that science makes, while unprovable, are validated in a certain sense because science works when we take them and doesn't when we abandon them. That being the case, I question the use of the word "faith" in the context of science. What do you think?
