Science presuppositions as being grounded on faith

[Dolorian]

This is an excerpt from the book Scientific Method In Practice by Hugh Gauch pp 151-152:

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?

[The Grand Nudger]

"We're just like those guys we vehemently claim to be incorrect!"
-Okay, good for you....?

[Tonus]

Sounds like solipsism. "If we cannot prove anything, then everything must be taken on faith. Science is therefore faith-based!" In other words, science and religion are on the same level because they both operate the same way at some fundamental level. It seems to me like the difference between the person who wants to become a better person by improving himself and the person who wants to feel better by putting others down. If you can drag science down to religion's level, then your inability to prove your beliefs are real is less of a problem.

Let me know the day that we can pray our way to putting men on the moon or making a longer-lasting battery or a keyless ignition system for our cars. Until then, I'll just shrug my shoulders when people try to equate the scientific method with faith-based belief in mythical creatures.

[bennyboy]

Science doesn't necessarily require faith. It requires only observable patterns, a willigness to observe them, and a desire to make useful inferences about them. Technically, it doesn't even really matter if the things you study "really" exist, or if they are illusions of a single solipsistic mind. So long as that solipsistic mind can draw inferences and benefit from them, science is STILL more useful than superstition.

You could say that believing in a physical monism is an act of faith. But you could equally see it as establish a sensible context: "For everything we can experience and know about as human beings, THESE ideas prove useful, and those others (i.e. religious ones) don't."

Let's say that any belief system requires a kind of faith. That doesn't mean that faith in bullshit is better than faith in the truth insofar as we are capable of observing it.

[Surgenator]

"Science rests on faith. Without this faith, technology's progress is still viable, but science's truth is undone."
No, the "science's truth" is what allows us to develop technology.

[Minimalist]

the philosophical reasoning that proves that "the physical world does exist" is unprovable likewise

Let's try an experiment. I will hit him over the head with a physical club and then hit him with a spiritual club and see which does the most damage.

[Alex K]

I've come to the conclusion that the only thing one has to accept axiomatically to do science is a rejection of solipsism.

[Surgenator]

the philosophical reasoning that proves that "the physical world does exist" is unprovable likewise

Let's try an experiment. I will hit him over the head with a physical club and then hit him with a spiritual club and see which does the most damage.

But spirits can't hurt themselves, you need hit him with a logic club.

[Faith No More]

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?

I think it is useful to remind ourselves that the value of empirical knowledge rests upon axiomatic "leaps of faith." The problem is that those reminders always seem to come in the form of the intellectual version of a kindergarten playground insult from a child that feels excluded.

When a person cries that science rests on faith just like religion, it says more about that person than it does about science and religion.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've come to the conclusion that the only thing one has to accept axiomatically to do science is a rejection of solipsism.

-and only a practical rejection at that.