Science vs. Faith

[Speaker to Animals]

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Wait. You argue that one can "prove" the axioms of the scientific method using the scientific method?

[Two Man]

No, that one can prove examples of objective reality.

[Speaker to Animals]

All of those things can be proven scientifically to a reasonable degree of certainty that (in my mind) precludes faith. It is more about probabilities than certainties. If something is verifiable and repoducable 99.99% of the time, that should be good enough to accept without faith as an objective reality.

Proven, how?

[boethius]

For his next trick, he will use Euclidean geometry to prove the parallel postulate.




Hint: If you don't know why that's absurd, you are out of your element here and need to go debate in a venue more your intellectual level, such as a Youtube comment section or gas station restroom graffiti.

[Two Man]

Dude, your faith is unzipped.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The process of doing science requires at least five acts of faith (that I can think of off the top of my head) that cannot be proven by the process of scientific empiricism:

1. Faith that there is an objective reality outside our senses/perceptions. (brain in a vat thought experiment)
2. Faith that cause and effect exist. (see, e.g. Hume's problem of induction).
3. Faith that objective reality operates according to logical laws of operation.
4. Faith that objective reality's laws of operation are consistent throughout time and space.
5. Faith that our brains are capable of understanding the fundamental laws of the universe despite our brains being formed by blind forces of evolution selecting for survival on the plains of the Serengeti.

You can be skeptical of all of those things and still get reliable results using the scientific method.
That could be the result of an elaborate ruse kept up by a diety that could change the rules at any time I suppose.

[boethius]

Two man :Your surrender is accepted.

You will find me a merciful conqueror, if you bend the knee early and eagerly.

[Speaker to Animals]

If you are skeptical of the scientific method's axioms, then you must be skeptical of the conclusions made using the scientific method.

[boethius]

The process of doing science requires at least five acts of faith (that I can think of off the top of my head) that cannot be proven by the process of scientific empiricism:

1. Faith that there is an objective reality outside our senses/perceptions. (brain in a vat thought experiment)
2. Faith that cause and effect exist. (see, e.g. Hume's problem of induction).
3. Faith that objective reality operates according to logical laws of operation.
4. Faith that objective reality's laws of operation are consistent throughout time and space.
5. Faith that our brains are capable of understanding the fundamental laws of the universe despite our brains being formed by blind forces of evolution selecting for survival on the plains of the Serengeti.

You can be skeptical of all of those things and still get reliable results using the scientific method.
That could be the result of an elaborate ruse kept up by a diety that could change the rules at any time I suppose.

One can reliably predict eclipses and harvest times with a geocentric model of the solar system.

That makes geocentrism useful (to a point), but not True.

[boethius]

If you are skeptical of the scientific method's axioms, then you must be skeptical of the conclusions made using the scientific method.

Nope.

Truth and utility are two very different concepts.

A person who thinks the wind is controlled by Air Fairies can be a better sailor than the kid from Oklahoma who knows all of Bernouli's and Newton's laws, but has never seen a body of water bigger than the local public pool.