Taking Science on Faith

[countrycousin]

is an op-ed piece in the NY Times:  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html

The apparent aim is to improve the dialog between the religious and science.  I'm all for the aim, and Davies has impressive credentials, but

Comments

[bec_87rb]

Davies also rejects the Many Universes concept where our universe is just right for life because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to notice it, and that bunches of other universes were possible and did/do exist where it is not just right.

He claims it is an Occam's Razor violation to assume these multitudes of universes with different sets of constants and laws, but I think he is overlooking the astronomical principle under which every time we assumed that we had a privileged singular central view on the universe, we turned out to be wrong.

Good fodder for discussion, though.

[countrycousin]

re: Occam's Razor violation to assume multiple universes

[countrycousin]

Considering his credentials and position, that is rather scary. But I have to agree with you - I don't agree with his concept of physical theory.

[imluxionverdin]

I agree with you. That is a very well argued discussion.

[countrycousin]

Thank you kindly! :<)

[unknownblogger]

I tend to agree with Davies, I've often felt the same but am not as good at putting it into words.

Science is largely about making testable extrapolations from the 'past' to the 'future' (I put these in inverted commas because they rely on a human-centric view of time). But there is no fundamental reason for the universe to behave in such a causal way in which the 'past' is a predictor of the 'future' via a set of rules, no matter how complex. Even if it seems that the 'past' is self-consistent, this does not prove that it is so (our concept of the 'past' is purely based on the current state of our brains and other objects), and the 'future' may not be determinable or exist at all. There are many leaps of faith involved in trusting our commonsense view of the world.

[unknownblogger]

To take this further, of course thinking is also a physical process; the universe might behave in such a way that thinking always produces self-consistent results (almost brain-in-a-jar, except not denying the existence of 'reality'). You can come up with a multitude of such theories that seem absurd (violate Occam's razor) and yet may be true, being untestable within the parameters of our universe. You might argue that science is not concerned with such meta-theories that are untestable, but only theories that describe observables. But while at any moment you can be thinking of a theory that seems to fit observations, there is no reason beyond faith to assume that it describes anything 'real' or can be used to make predictions.

[countrycousin]

If a statement is untestable, I would hesitate to apply "true" to it. I would indeed argue that such theories are outside science. They may pertain to the human condition - there are many important areas for people that are not science.

If at the moment we have a theory that seems to fit observations, to be part of science, it must make a prediction that conceivably could turn out false. We do not have faith that the prediction will turn out true - we periodically test it. And, sure, in the meantime we build bridges and rocketships and produce medicines based on how well this process has worked in the past, and that involves faith, but we continue to test. I agree, we focus the tests on those areas in which we have least confidence, but this is just intelligent gambling, not faith.

[countrycousin]

But there is no fundamental reason for the universe to behave in such a causal way in which the 'past' is a predictor of the 'future' via a set of rules, no matter how complex.

Oh, I agree. We simply observe that, in particular cases, it has worked pretty well so far. Evolution has observed that, too, and you and I have "black boxes" made out of grey matter that depend on that to help the infant learn to interact with its surroundings.

But it is not a leap of faith. It is an observation. In my post I discussed what might happen should the observed constancy change.

[elfbiter]

Has he maybe mixed up the academic politicking (that sometimes looks like an argumentative battle of dogmas) and the ideal of scientific method?

[countrycousin]

That's a good point. I don't know. I think he is just confused about what science is about. If that is true, it is very alarming, considering his position. Perhaps we - each other - are mutually confused about his position.