5.2 KiB
Scientific vs unscientific "faith"
-
Author: u/None *
-
URL:
-
Score: 0
-
Created: 2017-01-13T20:10:33
Post:
[removed]
Comments:
u/Cuz_Im_TFK [+5] (a day later)
Isn't this just a discussion about definitions for a word that means different things in different contexts? There are plenty of other examples of words that can be used in different ways, so there's no real significance in drawing strict lines between usage types or trying to come up with a "true definition" of the word.
Personally, I think it's more appropriate to describe "faith" as a particular flavor of "belief under uncertainty"—a flavor that typically carries some pretty strong connotations. Specifically, that one has insufficient evidence to believe a proposition to be true (or even has sufficient evidence to believe the proposition to be false), yet will act upon it as if it were true nonetheless (also known as "blind faith"). In this sense, "faith" is essentially an anti-rational concept.
Though "having faith" is just as commonly used as an expression of optimism or encouragement or as a colloquial way of referring to a "strong suspicion". In these latter cases, that "faith" is justified if there's sufficient evidence and it's unjustified if there isn't. It's usually pretty clear from the context or situation whether such faith is the aforementioned "strong, yet unjustified belief" or just a different way of saying you're pretty sure about something or hope that something is true.
As such, I don't think "hypothesis" is really the best replacement for "faith" in your Case #1, since a scientific hypothesis is simply a "falsifiable proposition" (often one to which you do not have enough evidence to assign strong confidence) and doesn't carry the same implications as the word "faith". It doesn't require "belief" at all. You can test a hypothesis you don't believe to be true in order to definitively rule it out as a possibility, just as you can form a hypothesis that you're think is very likely to be true based on proven theories, prior evidence, or previous experience.
"I have faith that the results of this final experiment will definitively prove our hypothesis."
In this case, the "faith" of the speaker is probably not blind faith and the word is being used as an optimistic way of stating that the speaker strongly suspects a certain outcome. If the speaker has good reason for his expectation, such as supporting evidence from the results of previous experiments or good compatibility with an established theory, then I see no problem with it. However, if the previous experiments had all resulted in the accumulation of evidence against the hypothesis, then this "faith" is likely completely baseless (worse than baseless actually), and therefore an irrational belief to hold.
"Regardless of the results of Carbon-14 dating, I still have faith that the Earth is only 6000 years old."
This one is obviously the anti-rational "blind faith" usage, since the (as far as I know, non-existent) evidence in favor of the Earth being 6000 years old is far weaker than the evidence against the proposition, yet the speaker professes to believe it anyway.
This is why arguing about definitions, or spending too much time trying to derive significance from the various ways a word can be used, is usually a pointless exercise. If the word "faith" being present in a sentence is confusing, just try to rephrase it without it and the intended meaning should come through. At the very least, you'll likely discover the source of your confusion which should help you resolve it.
u/melmonella [+3] Tremble, o ye mighty, for a new age is upon you (23 hours later)
Gr8 b8 m8, i r8 8/8
u/SometimesATroll [+3] (a day later)
This subreddit is mostly a repository of works of fiction (often fanfic) with "rational" main characters.
This post is a bit out of place.
u/serge_cell [+1] (12 hours later)
Second type of faith is not actually much different from the first. It's also situational and can flip according to situation. It's only faithfuls who believe they would be faithful forever and ever, whatever happens. In a reality it's always possible to force any person to change faith, with situational or psychological pressure, or physical pressure or chemicals as the last resort.
The difference between the first and second is that first mostly change in reaction to specific type of event - verified knowledge, experiments etc, and the second change in reaction to random events.
u/thrawnca [+1] Carbon-based biped (5 minutes later)
Indiana Jones' "Leap of Faith" was obviously type 1. If you believe the cryptic instructions are accurate, then test them, and you'll find out more. If you don't test them, you get nowhere.
u/FireHawkDelta [+2] ** (an hour later)
But doesn't faith mean to ignore doubt in that case? Unless the text urges you to test the leap by throwing a pebble first; I haven't seen the movie.
u/thrawnca [+2] Carbon-based biped (2 hours later)
The text isn't that specific, and Indy isn't a strictly rational actor, but pebbles are involved. I'd say to test it in whatever way you think best.