Science vs. Faith

[Two Man]

But you are unwilling to accept truth without faith?

[Fife]

X

[boethius]

I take on faith that I live in an objective reality that was created by something outside of an apart from our universe, that I have free will that is both constrained by, and transcends, this reality, and that I'm likely mistaken about one or two things I will say during my lifetime.

[Two Man]

Why can't you remove the first five words of your last statement. That would be a reply that can be respected.

[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.

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.

Exactly. And once we could verify that geocentrism was wrong, we moved on to a better model, thanks to a solid method. If we find something better than the current model, we will move on from that. Absolute confidence or faith won't get you there. Ever.

My whole point is that looking at the scientific method as True in some abstract or divinely appointed way is a mistake. It is useful, and faith hurts itso utility.

[boethius]

Why can't you remove the first five words of your last statement. That would be a reply that can be respected.

It would be untrue to say that I "know" reality is objective.

I can't know that or prove it and it is a lie to so claim.

[Two Man]

It is either illogical or cowardly to say you have faith that reality is real. It either is or it isn't.

[boethius]

It is either illogical or cowardly to say you have faith that reality is real. It either is or it isn't.

There may exist an objective reality, but it is impossible to prove so using a system of logic that requires an objective reality as an axiomatic presumption.

You haven't demonstrated a sufficient background in philosophy, metaphysics, or epistemology to have a productive conversation on this topic. I will nonetheless try to explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

[Two Man]

I'll try to have faith that you, er, professor, can explain that this post might not be real because one may not be able to trust the reality needed to explain it.

[boethius]

I'll try to have faith that you, er, professor, can explain that this post might not be real because one may not be able to trust the reality needed to explain it.

My senses perceive letters formed on my phone that resemble an argument and purport to be written by someone called"Two Man".

But whether there exists a sentient human causing those words to form is far from proven at this point.

If you want to understand the philosophical underpinnings of reality vs perception, start with Googling "brain in a vat". Or, you can watch the movie The Matrix.