Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» Human beings take things on "faith" all the time. Not limited to religion. Do SCIENTISTS ever take anything on faith?
Of course they do. Probably more than most actually.
It's not possible for them to personally verify everything they're told. Science is full of abstract concepts that are way outside human perception. They are inevitably accepting almost all of their beliefs based on faith in the ability and integrity of the scientific establishment.
Since there are obviously massive incentives for corruption, such faith is often misplaced. Scientific information that has political or economic impact should be regarded with extreme suspicion.
This post was edited by Zeitgeist at February 28, 2018 7:07 PM MST
Science is full of unproven hypotheses. Dark matter/energy is one. It makes much of the universe easier to explain, but no-one has ever put salt on its tail. Antimatter. Antigravity. Hawking radiation.
This post was edited by Slartibartfast at February 28, 2018 3:34 AM MST
Science essentially asks "what if" questions which do rely somewhat on "faith" if that is defined as "belief".
It accepts as Scientific Law only that which is provably immutable such as (at a basic level) those we learn in school science and maths lessons by simple experiments that demonstrate them - without such laws we could not discuss it by Internet, as we would not even have electricity supplies.
However, it needs those Laws on which to base and try to answer the harder "what if" hypotheses. Slartibartfast gives some classic present-day examples of hypotheses that demand a certain level of faith as well as using known Laws to probe the problems; but that faith does not preclude them being overturned if future knowledge shows them deeply flawed.
A historical example is that of Continental Drift. Geologists had established the planet has had enough time for things to happen, but still could not really explain major events like volcanoes, earthquakes and mountain-building. Then, rapidly, all these and more fell beautifully into place as part and parcel of Continental Drift - but only after both a lot of arguing, and new techniques allowing the discoveries of hitherto unknown features and processes. The controversy stemmed partly from clinging too faithfully to a structural model of the Earth's Crust that called the continents immoveable, "rigid masses".
To be fair, the concept we now accept, that hundreds of thousands of cubic miles of rock can be nudged around the face of planet at a few inches a year, would not have been easily humanly grasped, even by professional scientists accustomed to talking of mind-boggling hundreds of millions of years.
I heard a professional astronomer on the radio once, say that the vast distances involved are beyond human conception - we think a hundred miles a long way but can refer that to our own countries' geography - but that although just as human, astronomers accept these numbers. At a local level, we cannot humanly really envisage an electron; but we happily use lots of them to power our homes or put these words on the screen. Now, it's relatively easy for science to show Space really is that big, that geology works in thousands and millions of years, or how electrons make electrical things work; but perhaps accepting them scales relies both on the knowledge, and faith in that knowledge.
In the end perhaps the faith is in accepting the ability of humans prone to being subjective, to ask and analyse as objectively as possible.
Kittigate 