Belief vs. faith

Originally posted by josephw
If it were proven it wouldn't be a theory.

Then you don't know what a theory is.

A theory is something that is very strongly supported based on all our current evidence. Which makes it proven based on what we have observed so far. In terms of evolution, it is so strongly supported, no one in their right mind who has studied the evidence can say it is unproven.

If it is something that is believed to be true, but neither proven or disproven, it would be conjecture.

If it is a possibility which appears to be correct based on some observation, but not enough evidence for the scientific community to fully agree, it would be hypothesis.

Conjectures and hypotheses are NOT theories.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I am an Engineer myself. I agree that Science and Technology are extraordinarily powerful tools. Science has its limitations. It starts with axioms. Terms like mass, energy,gravity are described in terms of their effect but not explained. It is basically a collection of successful recipes. It cannot explain why the rules are the way they are.

Hypothesis and theories are the attempts at explaining why the rules (laws) are the way they are. It's true that these explanations can rest on axioms (self-evident or assumed truths), but in the end, the validity of those axioms and the theories that build on them rest upon how well the theories in question stand up to testing.*

So, I wouldn't say that science (I assume that's what you mean by "it" in the last paragraph) can't explain why the laws are the way they are (that's what we have theories and hypothesis for, after all), but rather that these explanations cannot be proven in an absolute sense, only supported or not.

* Actually, axioms cannot be disregarded simply because a theory that builds on them don't stand up to rigorous testing - it must also be shown that the axioms directly lead to whatever causes the theory to fail, but that goes without saying. Which may have you ask why I say it? I don't know, just to avoid any unnecessary discussion on the subject, I suppose.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nothing can ever do that. Every explanation will ultimately lead to more axioms.

Science should then confine itself to descriptions,elaborate and very well backed by demonstrations of the effects of the particular piece of the Universe or a phenomenon. But it should not take upon itself the explanation of the effect or the phenomenon. It should say that this is how it happens. But we do not know why.

Originally posted by Zenarctic
Hypothesis and theories are the attempts at explaining why the rules (laws) are the way they are. It's true that these explanations can rest on axioms (self-evident or assumed truths), but in the end, the validity of those axioms and the theories that build on them rest upon how well the theories in question stand up to testing.*

So, I wouldn't say that ...[text shortened]... y it? I don't know, just to avoid any unnecessary discussion on the subject, I suppose.

How would you then 'explain' the right hand thumb rule of electromagnetism? You cannot. You will be constrained to simply say that this is the way a magnetic force will be acting if the electricity flows this way.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Science should then confine itself to descriptions,elaborate and very well backed by demonstrations of the effects of the particular piece of the Universe or a phenomenon. But it should not take upon itself the explanation of the effect or the phenomenon. It should say that this is how it happens. But we do not know why.

Science can, and does, explain certain phenomena as a result of other phenomena. There is nothing wrong with science doing this, and it does so very successfully. I am not aware of it ever trying to go further, and I am not convinced that there is a further.
You seem to be implying that there is some territory that science should stay out of, I claim there is no such territory. In other words, science does not need to 'confine itself'.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
How would you then 'explain' the right hand thumb rule of electromagnetism? You cannot. You will be constrained to simply say that this is the way a magnetic force will be acting if the electricity flows this way.

Originally posted by twitehead
Science can, and does, explain certain phenomena as a result of other phenomena.

To build on twitehead's comment: When you explain a given phenomenon, new questions often arise. I take it that's what you (rysakhadeo) are pointing out here. That there is no definite answer, or truth, to be found in science. This is actually a natural consequence from the layered nature of the natural world, and to find a definite answer (or truth) would contradict everything we know about the natural world. It's simply not possible.

So, to say that a magnetic force will be acting a certain way if electricity flows in a given direction, is actually part of the explanation for Fleming's right hand rule of electromagnetism. But that explanation gives rise to further questions: What causes electricity to flow a given way? What is electromagnetism? How do they relate? Each can be answered, and thus explained, but each will raise new questions. Eventually, if you dig deep enough, because of our limited knowledge, you will reach a level where you don't have the means to find out the answers directly. When you get there, you can only hypothesise, test those hypothesis through indirect means, and these hypothesis (even when accepted - that is, they become theories) will give rise to even more questions.

Note now, that once you reach a certain depth of questioning you are detached from the original question. That's why if you hypothesise that gravity (to take another force) work as a result of gravitons jumping back and forth between objects (as described in Quantum Field Theory), and if you could detect the graviton somehow, you would have explained gravity, and you would have observations in support of that explanation. You are then faced with a number of question to which QFT currently can't offer any answers, and so the spiral continues to even deeper depths of scientific inquiry.

This is why evolution is now considered a theory, by the way. It explains how come life changes over time, from one species to another, and it's supported by the findings from several different disciplines of biology by now. But this of course gives rise to follow-up questions: How did life begin? When did it begin? How could DNA and RNA of such complexity come about naturally? And the answers to these questions are at another depth, and therefore not directly relevant to the theory of evolution (though they may change our understanding of the same).

Originally posted by Zenarctic
Originally posted by twitehead
[b]Science can, and does, explain certain phenomena as a result of other phenomena.

To build on twitehead's comment: When you explain a given phenomenon, new questions often arise. I take it that's what you (rysakhadeo) are pointing out here. That there is no definite answer, or truth, to be found in science. T ...[text shortened]... evant to the theory of evolution (though they may change our understanding of the same).[/b]

Referring to the 2nd para of your reply, I think you will agree with my say that Science is basically a collection of successful recipes. The recipes work every time but they fail to supply explanations. That being so, Science should have no pretensions of claiming that there is no such thing as God.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Referring to the 2nd para of your reply, I think you will agree with my say that Science is basically a collection of successful recipes. The recipes work every time but they fail to supply explanations. That being so, Science should have no pretensions of claiming that there is no such thing as God.

"….but they fail to supply explanations. ...”

here is just one small example (out of many) of an explanation (that you say doesn't exist) :

http://www.bookrags.com/essay-2004/12/13/154613/51

“..The SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION for resistance in a wire, is due to the composition of the atoms found in metal conductors. When an electron (from current) passes through a wire, it will hit these atoms which make up the structure of the metal. This in effect, restricts the movement of the current through the wire and so obviously if a wire were to be longer, there would be more atoms colliding with electrons which would ultimately mean a higher resistance.
….” (my emphasis)

how is that NOT an “explanation”?
How does it NOT “explain” that resistance in a wire is as a result of electrons colliding with atoms?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
That being so, Science should have no pretensions of claiming that there is no such thing as God.

I am not aware of science ever having any such pretensions. Though what it has to do with your argument, I fail to see. What science can, and often does do, is provide an explanation as to how something works that rules out an alternative explanation in which God is given as the cause.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
...Science should have no pretensions of claiming that there is no such thing as God.

Science itself claim no such thing. It's only used for learning about and understanding the natural world. You can't deal with the supernatural from a scientific approach. However, science can help explain various psychological phenomenons, and thereby provide an alternative natural explanation for religious beliefs (for instance). But it can never be used to prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural (as indeed it never has been - well, short of failed pseudo-scientific attempts), since it can only be applied to the realm of the natural world.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not aware of science ever having any such pretensions. Though what it has to do with your argument, I fail to see. What science can, and often does do, is provide an explanation as to how something works that rules out an alternative explanation in which God is given as the cause.

I should have read your post before I posted. It would have saved me a few minutes.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
"….but they fail to supply explanations. ...”

here is just one small example (out of many) of an explanation (that you say doesn't exist) :

http://www.bookrags.com/essay-2004/12/13/154613/51

“..The SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION for resistance in a wire, is due to the composition of the atoms found in metal conductors. When an electron (from curren ...[text shortened]... s it NOT “explain” that resistance in a wire is as a result of electrons colliding with atoms?

Actually my points are i) Natural Laws as enunciated by scientists are having axiomatic content.ii) Natural Laws are not basically explainable e.g. Why objects attract each other in proportion of product of their masses and inversely proportionate to the square of the distances from each other ? Why don't they repel each other rather than attract each other ? We say that this law of Gravitation is based on observations and found to be infallible. But what caused this law to be the way it has been enunciated ? Natural laws being based on logic as well as observations are thus confined to the Observed/Tested Reality but the question does arise why the law is the way it is. Why could it not be different? Science then reduces to a very accurate description of observed reality and experiments which prove this or that hypothesis.
If science is then not more than a collection of successful recipes,why are we so much hypnotised by Science, saying that scientific method is the only method to find the truth and scientific truth is the only truth ?
We are talking of beliefs and Faith in this thread. Is not science based on the belief of certain axioms? For example,Light was believed to consists of Photons in the Newtonian theory.The entire theory of refraction was based on this axiom. Then came Christian Huygens and he stated that Light consists of waves.Only the wave theory could explain Diffraction. Now Scientists say that Light sometimes behaves as particles sometimes as waves. Scientific belief appears to be tailored to suit observed reality.
Even so,many scientists starting from Dawkins aggressively and at times hatefully reject the concept of God and deride believers/theists as deluded people !

Originally posted by twhitehead
Science can, and does, explain certain phenomena as a result of other phenomena. There is nothing wrong with science doing this, and it does so very successfully. I am not aware of it ever trying to go further, and I am not convinced that there is a further.
You seem to be implying that there is some territory that science should stay out of, I claim there is no such territory. In other words, science does not need to 'confine itself'.

I request you to refer to the net on ' limitations of science '. Especially to Dr. Vannevar Bush on this in Time magazine dt. 7th Nov. 1965.

Originally posted by Agerg
As for my take on belief vs faith, there are things I believe to be true which I don't actually `know' to be factual - but I could go away and check if suspicion got the better of me. Faith on the other hand seems a bit like saying 171,727,482,883 is prime[hidden]it isn\'t! change the last digit to a 1[/hidden]for no reason other than...well...it looks prime doesn't it!?

I believe in the force of gravity and I have faith that it will work.
So I will not jump off a tall building to prove it because I believe
I will get hurt. If I did not believe or lacked faith, I might try it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe in the force of gravity and I have faith that it will work.
So I will not jump off a tall building to prove it because I believe
I will get hurt. If I did not believe or lacked faith, I might try it.

This response gives rise to an obvious ad-hom; I shall resist the temptation ;]