Essay: Faith in scientific hypotheses
Oct. 13th, 2009 01:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mahnmutContinuing with the topic of Faith now, I've translated the second essay from that folder.
Faith in Scientific Hypotheses
Has it happened to you that during a debate with a deeply religious person, you would at some point reach a moment when you are being served a ratiocination of the sort: "It is not true that faith is irrational; just look for example at the way scientists believe in unreal hypothetical theories!" Using such kind of pseudo-argumentation, the believer usually attempts to defend himself from the accusation that his conviction that the surrealistic fabrications which he has tricked himself into believing are hardly bordering on objective reality in any way, and moreover it is absurd; he would give for example the sientists (who are supposedly smart and reasonable people), who also seem to believe in unproven theories.
The shorter response to such an 'argument' would in most cases have been polite laughter and then, further ignoration. The longer response is here to follow...
Let us first clarify that a hypothesis is an assertion with some level of probability, which could not be immediately and directly proven, but which rests on a set of facts that have already been verified in one way or another; ie it is a probable assertion which so far has an indirect relation to reality. At a later point, it could be demonstrated to be correct or it could turn out to be incorrect; but given the fact that it is already following a line of proven assertions, it is worth being examined in a serious manner. This is exactly the moment which many believers omit, when dropping the above-mentioned pseudo-argument: they believe that the 'faith' of a scientist in the String Theory for example is equivalent to their faith, for example that Jesus Christ is God, because neither the String Theory could be directly proven at this point, nor any direct evidence that Jesus is God has so far been provided. "Therefore", the believer would conclude, "since the scientists - those rational creatures - do believe in String Theory, and since it is unprovable, why shouldn't we believe that Jesus can answer our prayers if we accept Him in our hearts - and consider this to be something as rational as String Theory?" This, in itself, is a naive and simplistic excuse, caused by the lack of basic understanding of the principles of the very philosophy of science.
No matter how hard believers would try, they would not find even one rationally thinking scientist who would accept as absolute truth the assertion "the elementary particles consist of microscopical strings which vibrate at various rates and thus create the diversity in the properties of the basic elements of nature". On the other hand, the believers would not be able to find a serious scientist who would consider the above assertion absolutely improbable and incorrect, either. Every reasonable scientist, when asked to give a Yes or No answer to the question whether the elementary particles are strings, would only remain silent on the matter and would ask you to re-formulate the question, in a way that would allow a Yes or No answer. The correct re-formulation of the question would sound similar to: "is it probable that the elementary particles are microscopical strings which vibrate... etc?" In these amended circumstances, any scientist who is at least remotely familiar with the issue would be able to answer "Yes, it is probable".
Why? 1) Because the question is now being put in a correct form - it clearly contains the information that the assertion presented is resting on a certain hypothesis. 2) Because String Theory is preceded and rests on an orderly mathematical apparatus, which has been demonstrated to be internally incontradictory, and because as a result of this theory, the basic laws of some other, more specific theories could be deduced, such as the theory of Quantum Mechanics, and the General Relativity theory. 3) Because the development of String Theory has become necessary due to the irreconcilability between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, which means that neither of the two is the ultimate "Theory of Everything", or in itself, even a basis for such.
The latter two points determine the rationality of a given hypothesis, they serve to prove its value as a source of knowledge, therefore accepting the probability that the elementary particles are strings is part of our cognition (knowledge). If a scientist ever assumes with a 100% certainty that the elementary particles are strings, we would be already talking of irrational faith (albeit still regarding a rational hypothesis), and we would thus leave the realm of science, to enter the realm of faith. Such a scientist however could not be taken seriously, because such absolute conviction may exist only after a given assertion has been proven through multiple experiments (and in the case of String Theory, we are far from achieving such a thing because of our scarce capabilities at this point); or rather, in case it is unambiguously proven that this is the only possible version of the "Theory of Everything".
People who believe in religious dogma make the inappropriate analogy between themselves and those few scientists who, mainly through a linguistic glitch or a lack of full understanding of the philosophy of science, turn out to be believers in hypotheses which are far from having been completely proven. And the "hypotheses" of the believers are hereby put in quotes, because unlike the scientist who "believes" in String Theory, they cannot substantiate in any reasonable way why such a hypothesis like theirs should even be adduced in the first place.
How could we possibly prove the relation between objective reality and such an assertion like: "A god named Xenu, who was the ruler of the Intergalactic Confederation, brought all human souls to Earth some 75 million years ago, he put them in groups around big volcanos, then he detonated hydrogen bombs around them and the thus scattered souls were implanted into the physical bodies of the living creatures"?
Or even worse, how could we prove the assertion: "Jesus Christ is God, but in the meantime he is His son, who was born by a virgin through immaculate conception, he sacrificed himself for the people's sins even before they had committed them, after which he was resurrected, he ascended to heaven and when we die, he will put our souls to final judgement."
Faith in Scientific Hypotheses
Has it happened to you that during a debate with a deeply religious person, you would at some point reach a moment when you are being served a ratiocination of the sort: "It is not true that faith is irrational; just look for example at the way scientists believe in unreal hypothetical theories!" Using such kind of pseudo-argumentation, the believer usually attempts to defend himself from the accusation that his conviction that the surrealistic fabrications which he has tricked himself into believing are hardly bordering on objective reality in any way, and moreover it is absurd; he would give for example the sientists (who are supposedly smart and reasonable people), who also seem to believe in unproven theories.
The shorter response to such an 'argument' would in most cases have been polite laughter and then, further ignoration. The longer response is here to follow...
Let us first clarify that a hypothesis is an assertion with some level of probability, which could not be immediately and directly proven, but which rests on a set of facts that have already been verified in one way or another; ie it is a probable assertion which so far has an indirect relation to reality. At a later point, it could be demonstrated to be correct or it could turn out to be incorrect; but given the fact that it is already following a line of proven assertions, it is worth being examined in a serious manner. This is exactly the moment which many believers omit, when dropping the above-mentioned pseudo-argument: they believe that the 'faith' of a scientist in the String Theory for example is equivalent to their faith, for example that Jesus Christ is God, because neither the String Theory could be directly proven at this point, nor any direct evidence that Jesus is God has so far been provided. "Therefore", the believer would conclude, "since the scientists - those rational creatures - do believe in String Theory, and since it is unprovable, why shouldn't we believe that Jesus can answer our prayers if we accept Him in our hearts - and consider this to be something as rational as String Theory?" This, in itself, is a naive and simplistic excuse, caused by the lack of basic understanding of the principles of the very philosophy of science.
No matter how hard believers would try, they would not find even one rationally thinking scientist who would accept as absolute truth the assertion "the elementary particles consist of microscopical strings which vibrate at various rates and thus create the diversity in the properties of the basic elements of nature". On the other hand, the believers would not be able to find a serious scientist who would consider the above assertion absolutely improbable and incorrect, either. Every reasonable scientist, when asked to give a Yes or No answer to the question whether the elementary particles are strings, would only remain silent on the matter and would ask you to re-formulate the question, in a way that would allow a Yes or No answer. The correct re-formulation of the question would sound similar to: "is it probable that the elementary particles are microscopical strings which vibrate... etc?" In these amended circumstances, any scientist who is at least remotely familiar with the issue would be able to answer "Yes, it is probable".
Why? 1) Because the question is now being put in a correct form - it clearly contains the information that the assertion presented is resting on a certain hypothesis. 2) Because String Theory is preceded and rests on an orderly mathematical apparatus, which has been demonstrated to be internally incontradictory, and because as a result of this theory, the basic laws of some other, more specific theories could be deduced, such as the theory of Quantum Mechanics, and the General Relativity theory. 3) Because the development of String Theory has become necessary due to the irreconcilability between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, which means that neither of the two is the ultimate "Theory of Everything", or in itself, even a basis for such.
The latter two points determine the rationality of a given hypothesis, they serve to prove its value as a source of knowledge, therefore accepting the probability that the elementary particles are strings is part of our cognition (knowledge). If a scientist ever assumes with a 100% certainty that the elementary particles are strings, we would be already talking of irrational faith (albeit still regarding a rational hypothesis), and we would thus leave the realm of science, to enter the realm of faith. Such a scientist however could not be taken seriously, because such absolute conviction may exist only after a given assertion has been proven through multiple experiments (and in the case of String Theory, we are far from achieving such a thing because of our scarce capabilities at this point); or rather, in case it is unambiguously proven that this is the only possible version of the "Theory of Everything".
People who believe in religious dogma make the inappropriate analogy between themselves and those few scientists who, mainly through a linguistic glitch or a lack of full understanding of the philosophy of science, turn out to be believers in hypotheses which are far from having been completely proven. And the "hypotheses" of the believers are hereby put in quotes, because unlike the scientist who "believes" in String Theory, they cannot substantiate in any reasonable way why such a hypothesis like theirs should even be adduced in the first place.
How could we possibly prove the relation between objective reality and such an assertion like: "A god named Xenu, who was the ruler of the Intergalactic Confederation, brought all human souls to Earth some 75 million years ago, he put them in groups around big volcanos, then he detonated hydrogen bombs around them and the thus scattered souls were implanted into the physical bodies of the living creatures"?
Or even worse, how could we prove the assertion: "Jesus Christ is God, but in the meantime he is His son, who was born by a virgin through immaculate conception, he sacrificed himself for the people's sins even before they had committed them, after which he was resurrected, he ascended to heaven and when we die, he will put our souls to final judgement."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-14 08:36 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-14 12:42 pm (UTC)