Darren New wrote:
> Argumentative religious people often seem to comment that science 
> requires faith. Argumentative non-religious people say that's nonsense, 
> since there is evidence.

I don't know about scientists, but one might contend that *normal 
people* take science on faith.

For example, I'm pretty sure that green light is a wave with a 
wavelength of about 550 nm. But it's unlikely that I'll ever have access 
to the sophisticated scientific equipment necessary to precisely measure 
the wavelength of green light. So I have to take it on faith.

> I contend that there are at least two things 
> most scientists take on faith, without supporting evidence:
> 
> 1) That reality works substantially in accordance with measurements.

If you mean "the universe is deterministic", well if that isn't the 
case, it is impossible to know anything, and we can stop now. There, we 
just explored every possible consequence of that hypothesis. Now if we 
assume that the universe *is* deterministic, we have quite a lot of 
consequences to explore - hence, science exists.

> 1A) We're not in the Matrix, nor other jar-in-a-brain situations.

That would still be a deterministic universe. (Although in principle its 
creator could change the rules at random if they wished.)

> 1B) We're not wholly simulated entities created by an uber-programmer,
>     a dreaming deity, etc.

This is the same argument.

> 1C) There is no supernatural entity attempting to mislead us.

Again, if you assume that some all-powerful entity is trying to mislead 
us, we can stop now. So it's more interesting to assume that there isn't.

> 2C) Humans aren't in a region of space whose physical laws and/or constants
>     are significantly different than elsewhere.

If this isn't the case, it's almost impossible to prove it.

> 2D) There is no advanced or supernatural entity(ies) guiding evolution, 
> etc, such that humans come out on top.

Same as above.

Science is, by definition, only concerned with that which is provable. 
This isn't necessarily what is true, just what you can prove.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message