David:
Here's a link to a nice article by Matt Emerson from the Wall Street Journal, describing the parallels that we sometimes find between religion and science, to explain the world around us:
Gravitational waves that were predicted by Einstein's theory remained elusive for 100 years, but that didn't quell the faith of physicists that they were present.
Doug:
The article (requiring you either give WSJ money, or trade all of your info on your friends in order to read it) attempts to align "faith and reason" in science and religion. One doesn't need to read the article; it is really just an appeal to believe that there is really "faith" in science, and "reason" in religion.
David:
Sorry. I could not find any versions of the article posted in a free format. Of course, you shouldn’t blame a media outlet for recouping their costs. The WSJ has fewer pop-up ads than most sites I visit.
Doug:
Not your fault… I searched too. The article only exists behind this paywall. I don't blame businesses for trying to making money, but their options for doing so are too limited: subscribe or give them information on people you know.
David:
I find your initial comment curiously condescending. First, you are certain that you need not even read the article. You have faith that the appeal will not sway you, without even knowing what the appeal is. And, you deny that there is any faith in science, and there is no reason to be found in religion.
Doug:
Well, it is a short article. It is largely a misunderstanding about what "faith" and "reason" are. Let's look at "faith" in science. The author uses the decades-long quest to find evidence of gravitational waves (that we talked about three weeks ago) to show that scientists must have faith:
The scientists who made the gravitational-wave discovery... were pursuing a “dream based on faith in reason: that the logical deductions of Einstein and his mathematics would be reliable.” - WSJ
The author's idea is that the scientists had "faith"---working for many years with only their beliefs guiding them. I'm willing to call this faith, but only if we use the word consistently when applied to religion. In order to do that, we have to look at what the scientists were actually doing, and what the impact would have on the science.
First, the scientists were attempting to show a specific effect of the implications of Einstein's theory. They knew going into the experiment that they would have to create new techniques in order to be able to measure such infinitesimally small perturbances. They were not sure that they could do it. And of course, it could turn out that Einstein’s theory was wrong.
The biggest difference between "faith" in science and faith in religion: what would happen if the scientists didn't find the evidence they were looking for? There were four possibilities:
- Einstein was wrong.
- Their equipment was not sensitive enough.
- Their equipment was faulty.
- The waves were rare and they just haven't seen them yet.
Possibilities 2, 3, and 4 were real, but were ruled out through time and testing. In fact, before success, the scientists did science along the way: every negative result was a data point that lead to a deeper understanding. They did not fail until they succeeded---they were collecting data all of the while.
But what if after many decades, they still had not found what they were looking for? After all other options would be exhausted, then only option 1 would be left: Einstein could have been wrong. This is what makes faith in science different: being wrong is always a viable option.
If "faith" in religion can allow you to find yourself to say: "oh, I must have been wrong" then I have no trouble using the same word in science. But if faith requires you never abandon your beliefs, then we should use a different word to describe that belief that scientists have when doing their work.
David:
I let you ramble on for a bit there, without interruption, because I had faith that eventually you would disprove your own points. Thanks for not disappointing me.
As to your 4 points, there are really only 2. Einstein was wrong or Einstein is right, but we have not yet achieved a means to prove him right. But at what point do you admit to possibility number one? Apparently never. You see, you yourself admit they worked for one hundred years to prove him right. Scientists were never going to stop the search, because they had faith that they would eventually find their answers.
You claim that after all options had been exhausted, science moves on. But that is not true. If scientists hold a belief that something should be true, they never stop to say, “no, we’re all wrong”. They continue the search.
Doug:
No, that is incorrect on multiple levels. First, science is made up of individuals doing individual research. Not everyone is working on the same problem. There are lots of researchers attempting to show that Einstein was wrong. In fact, even Einstein believed that he must have been wrong about some of the implications of his work. But his feelings didn't matter. The evidence speaks for itself and points to a better understanding.
David:
No one was working to prove him wrong. How can you prove you will never find something that no one has ever found?
Doug:
You could show something that his theory would not predict. It is incorrect to say that they have been trying to prove him right for 100 years. The technology to test the hypothesis was created during this research. By the way, they are still tweaking the machine that does the detection. If they didn't detect the waves yet, they could still go with finer measurements. But they found the waves almost the instant that they turned on the machine.
David:
Exactly my point (again). If they didn’t detect the waves with this particular experiment, they would not have said “Oh well, I guess we’ve reached the end of the road. Einstein was wrong. Let’s all go home.” No. They would continue the search indefinitely, because of their faith in something they knew would eventually be found.
Doug:
If they never found waves, then this would be a giant enigma in science. Hypotheses would be created to attempt to explain the lack of readings. This is the difference between science that leads to results, and that work on perpetual motion machines.
David:
Hebrews 11:1 notes that “Faith is being sure of what is hoped for, and being certain of what you cannot see.”
Doug:
It is that "certainty" that makes all of the difference. That is why a negative result in science is still a result. Scientists work towards an understanding, not a particular theory.
David:
If mathematics and physics requires a “fudge factor” to make the math work, science will develop a theory to fill in the gap.
Doug:
That is how science works. That gap is then filled, or a new model without a gap is created.
David:
Not so fast, he who talks from both sides of his mouth. You say that if the science fails, a new theory will be created, but the reality is scientist searched for 100 years, and would have searched for 100 more, or 200, or 300 if needed, to find what they were certain existed, although they had not yet seen it. In other words, they were driven by the certainty of their faith.
Doug:
I don't think you'd be able to get more funding if this team had failed. Unless you designed new equipment, or had a good explanation of their negative results. Remember, science is that endeavor done by the community. So, even if you had some "certainty of faith," you still have to convince your peers to give you money to do the science. That just wouldn't happen.
David:
Not true. The National Science Foundation spent more than one billion (with a “B”) dollars over just the last 40 years. As the National Science Foundation distributes government funding to science projects, it seems very unlikely they would have stopped at this point. Again, this was an important feature of Einstein’s theory, and inconceivable that after a century of effort, science would give up this quest. This is a perfect example of faith being an important part of science.
Doug:
Inconceivable? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
David:
Another example is “dark matter”. “Dark matter” is the unseen, unknowable matter that science, through faith, has declared makes up “most” of the cosmos. Because dark matter is needed for the mathematical equations of the universe to work, scientists will never give up the search for it. They are certain in what they hope for, and they are certain it will be found at the end of the rainbow. If it takes a thousand years, they will continue to seek for it. The assumption by you, of course, is that because this is science, scientists will eventually find the data and evidence they need. And yet, for some reason harder to find than dark matter, you refuse to acknowledge that there is an element of faith involved in the search.
Doug:
Hold on there. Why would you describe this as "unknowable" or that it has anything to do with "faith"? Oh, I see: you would have said the same about gravitational waves four weeks ago.
David:
Yes, I would have said the same thing four weeks ago. The “evidence” is only evidence now that it has been found. But four weeks ago, it was still only the same theory that required a century-long search. If scientists had not discovered gravitational waves when they did, you yourself said they would have continued the search. And I continue to say they would have continued the search by an unrelenting faith in the unproven science. Now, it has some data, but four weeks ago, it did not. That is how science works. You don’t have to bend over backwards to deny an act of faith.
Doug:
But scientists don't make up concepts out of thin air. They make them up to fit within an existing model, that is itself built on top of tested theories. Then we look for evidence. If we don't find the evidence, then we go back and look at the theory.
David:
Einstein created a whole new way to see the world. He created a new model. He created a new theory. He did make it up out of thin air, and that’s why he’s one of the deepest thinkers of modern times. And, he didn’t disbelieve in faith, or in a higher power.
Doug:
No, Einstein built on the science of the day. If he had not done this work, someone would have.
David:
Perhaps. But Einstein was a unique individual, and his way of looking at the universe and it’s workings was revolutionary.
As a Christian, I also believe that the evidence I need to support my beliefs exists, all around me, everyday. And, I would argue, there is much data to suggests that the things Jesus said are true. After all, there have been numerous studies looking at religious beliefs and personal well-being, and how believers function in the world they live in. Many reasoned people will back me up.
Doug:
That's great, but that kind of argument would not sway any minds in science. Science works by evidence, not by invoking many reasoned friends backing up one's claims. I'm not dismissing your faith, but I think you can see that science does not need faith. In fact, it needs to be able to stand on its own without it.
David:
Your complete inability to reflect on your own words makes me smile a bit. Science works by evidence, unless it doesn’t have any evidence. Then, it works by seeking evidence. It may take a century or more. It may fail numerous times. But, it will continue to seek what is hoped for, and what is certain of what, up to this point, has not yet been seen. This is the very definition of faith.
Doug:
Who is doing the seeking? Who has this faith? It isn't any one scientist, I guess, unless you are talking about someone living hundreds of years. And you are not talking about a single person during their lifetime, because sometimes a scientist can't fathom the implications of their own theory. So it must be that science itself has the faith.
It makes sense that you would see science itself as having faith, because it looks like that from the outside. But, I can assure you that science as an endeavor does not have faith.
David:
But I am not looking at it from the outside, brother. I’m an insider, like you. I just call it like I see it.
A scientist knows proof must be there, even though it hasn't been found yet. So, by faith, the scientist plods onward in the belief that the results will eventually be found, and the theory proven. In the case of gravitational waves, the search labored on for more than the scientists own lifetimes. It is how science works. We both agree on that point. I just find it amusing that you can’t use the word “faith” to describe what is clearly “faith”. I assume they will kick you out of the atheist club if you did something so heretical?
Doug:
What you don't acknowledge is that there are lots of people that give up on a particular idea, and others pick up the trail. No one scientist has any faith of certainty…. every scientist believes in their heart that tomorrow they could find evidence that will send them in a different direction. And they would follow the evidence wherever it leads. That is very different from faith in religion.
David:
It is the very essence of faith in religion. In every reading of the Bible, a Christian finds new meaning, and new direction in every verse, and in the inter-relational aspect of different verses. That is why you fail to find the similarities between religion and science, because you have only experienced one of the two. Perhaps I might recommend you read the Bible, or perhaps start with the New Testament. This brings us back to your original statement: You don’t feel you need to read it to understand it or to see the appeal. I pray it takes less time for you to find that understanding than it did for science to find gravitational waves.
Doug:
I absolutely believe that in order to make some breakthroughs in science, one needs to step away from the lab or computer, read some poetry, watch a movie, read a book. But I do not believe that praying for different outcomes in a science experiment will have any effect. Nor do I believe that Einstein is right because we have faith in him. Einstein could have been wrong (could still be wrong), and we will discover that through experiments. Willing to head in a different direction means that one is willing to abandon everything connected to a theory if it is shown to be wrong. Are you willing to abandon all of your beliefs if they don't have evidence to support them? I am. And that is why "faith" is the wrong word to use in science.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!