When is "Belief" Used in Scientific Exploration?

Well in engineering the use of the word "belief" generally (from my point of view) is the short hand version of saying "Based on my current knowledge and experience's with previous work on something similar". This is "belief" based on known knowledge and facts (I "believe" I can make it do what you want).

It really all comes down to experience and observation, for example "I believe that the important value measured is wrong based on the results we have already/expected". This should be followed by "We should remeasure it to be sure, least we base or results on false data".

There you go, a discussion on "belief" and with not one single mention of the "R" word necessary.

...to be sure, lest we base our results...

(Those damn editors/English majors/tech writers...)

Great question.

A scientist or researcher believes in cause and effect so that his test of the hypothesis will give valid or useable results. With no belief in cause and effect, no experiment would be valid.

A scientist or researcher believes strongly enough in their hypothesis, or disbelieves strongly enough in another's, that they deign to experiment, at expense of their time and resources, to gain evidence that (they believe) supports their belief.

At the end of particularly vexing day, many scientists and researchers believe that they'd like to have a cold beverage.

I am using believe as meaning "confident enough in an idea that further expenditure of their time/resources is merited."

In other words believe is the verbal equivalent of p> .50, or p> (.50 + cost of doing the experiment in P terms) where cost is Squeeze or what the house takes. Or at whatever value they personally decide the reward outweighs the risk.

milo

It has been said by a scientist (not sure, but I think it was astronomer Vera Rubin):

"I'm usually very suspicious about strongly held beliefs, especially my own".

Good point.

English is not my mother tongue. As I understand it, the word "Belief" means a personal prejudice or opinion. An ideal scientist is supposed to keep his mind free of all beliefs except possibly a belief in an underlying order and logic in the fabric of reality. Of course that is an ideal (like the Carnot engine) which human scientists aspire to.

Good point. Furthermore, if we equate "belief" with "faith" (the acceptance of an assertion despite the lack of supporting evidence), some may argue that scientists and engineers only need to have belief/faith in the scientific method. But this is incorrect because we need to go one step further in the chain of reasoning. The only thing that we truly need to have belief or faith in is that our sensory experience correlates accurately to an objective reality. If we can trust our senses, then empirical evidence validates the scientific method and all of the scientific knowledge that flows from it. So we do not really need belief or faith when dealing with scientific issues. In fact, belief and faith distract us from scientific truth, and also endanger humanity by spawning religious and political dogmas. Whatever confidence we have in current theories must be rooted in empirical observation. Leave faith and belief where it really belongs -- with the religionists, mystics, and politicians.

By the way, my emphasis on empiricism in the search for scientific truth does not mean that I embrace atheism. Atheism is actually another faith based on the acceptance of an unprovable assertion ("God does not exist" is unprovable by formal logic or empiricism). The scientific viewpoint should be agnostic towards phenomena that it cannot study.

We can never fully trust our senses since none of them are complete, perfect, and certainly not objective. Therefore, anything we take as "evidence" is always rooted in our faith and beliefs. I believe that "objective reality" exists but I need faith in some things to determine what is "objective reality".

I agree that our senses are imperfect. But that does not prevent us from taking a probabilistic empirical approach to our understanding of reality (at least to the portion amenable to empirical study). Of course there is no absolute certainty in science or even in mathematics -- as proved by Gödel's incompleteness theorem. All formal reasoning ultimately relies on unprovable axioms. However, we can still use empirical feedback to assign degrees of certainty to our theories of how physical reality works. So even if we can't have perfect certainty, we can still reach enough certainty to attain practical success in our endeavors (the energy conservation law seems solid so far; those Mars rovers sure worked nicely). We owe all of our science and technology to the scientific method and the apparent (sufficient) accuracy of our senses. I don't see the need for belief or faith in the fields of science or engineering. We don't even have to have faith in our senses -- their sufficient accuracy looks like a given. If they did not operate with some at least minimally adequate level of accuracy, our species would not have survived, and we would not be having this discussion.

I think I agree with you that axioms are taken on faith, that we can somewhat rely on our five senes, and that the validation of scientific theories depends on results. One axiom required for the scientific method is that reality is consistent (e.g. there are laws). So I think that you agree with me that faith is the basis for science.

So I think that you agree with me that faith is the basis for science.

No, I disagree. The basis of science (i.e., of the scientific method) is *empirical observation*. As I already stated, it is self-evident that our senses are sufficiently accurate at relaying information about objective reality (otherwise our species would not have survived for very long). And the scientific method is self-validating in that it is confirmed by empirical observation (judging from our technology, it has succeeded rather well). So, I see no place for faith in the process of discovering scientific truth. Faith -- since it claims authoritative knowledge while denying the necessity for empirical observation -- is actually a threat to scientific progress (whether that faith originates within the context of religion or politics).

Objective reality in the physical universe that we can perceive with our senses does not precisely match mathematics, science, or our perceptions. We use things that do not exist in the physical universe as simplified models because the physical universe is too large, complicated, and discrete for us to completely understand. That is why we have developed axioms (things we believe by faith), idealized things that do not exist in the physical universe (like points, lines, and other geomtric shapes), and scientific theories (beliefs) that are simplified models of the real universe.

For instance, we use the melting point (and other characteristics) of water for various things, but the objective reality is that we can never actually produce "pure" water since there will always be some stray radicals but if we could then it would still actually be composed of various isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen which have varying physical and chemical properties.

So we must base our work as engineers on faith and beliefs as a foundation which we then build mathematics, science, and engineering applications. This works fine for certain applications but often provides incorrect, inaccruate, and/or insufficient results when applied as if our constructs are truly objective reality. This normally happens when we change scales, context, or situation.

I believe that there is an objective reality; and it is important for us to work toward better models of objective reality; however, we make mistakes whenever we refuse to reconsider how we reached our current theories, models, and approaches by not reconsidering our senses, axioms, and theories.

Faith and beliefs are an essential part of being human. Those are the basis for logic and reason. So we are able to model starting with axioms (taken on faith) the objective reality (one of our beliefs) of things that exist in the physical universe using things that do not exist in the physical universe like points, lines, ellipses, etc.

Sorry for replying a week late -- been preoccupied with other matters.

This discussion about the role of belief/faith in engineering is very important, since misconceptions about how science works adversely affect our ability as citizens to make intelligent (rational) decisions. I emphatically repeat that science (i.e., the scientific method) relies mainly on *empirical observations*, not faith. Note these definitions:

Scientific method: a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method).

Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

(source: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith)

I agree that we can never have *absolute* certainty about our observations nor the conclusions we draw from them. Scientific uncertainty stems from mainly three sources: imperfect accuracy of the raw data, the finite number of data points, and the assumptions underlying our models. Conscientious scientists and engineers (i.e., those that rigorously follow the scientific method) readily admit this. All certainty about scientific theories is a matter of degree (probability). And all theories are tentative, and subject to modification or complete replacement in the future by new theories that fit the data better. The very nature of scientific research is to question existing theories, gather new data, and come up with ever more accurate descriptions of nature (does this sound anything like faith-based religion?). So claiming that "science is based on faith" because we can't have perfect certainty sounds over-simplistic to the point of intellectual dishonesty. Consider this: if observation shows that any of our starting assumptions or axioms fail to hold true, we admit this, and try to improve our starting assumptions (no assumptions are ever beyond question). Even if our senses sometimes fail us, the feedback provided by empirical experimentation will allow us to notice the error. We do not take anything on faith alone -- we accept theories because they succeed at predicting the outcomes of hands-on experiments. We don't have "faith" in relativity theory -- we accept it because the GPS system works. Any theory that makes less accurate predictions is discarded.

Compare this to religion, in which we are supposed to have *absolute certainty* in unchanging scriptures, and in the unquestioned authority of the clergy. The central tenets of dogma are not up for experimental investigation or modification. How many heretics have been murdered for their views by the clergy? How many scientists have been murdered by the scientific establishment for proposing new theories?

I am surprised that more CR4 members did not challenge the idea that "science is faith-based". Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents routinely spout this fallacy in order to try to convince the masses that science and religion are equally valid ways of studying the material world. It alarms me that, in the name of political correctness and "fairness", increasing numbers of scientifically-illiterate citizen are going along with it. Do we really want national policy decided on the basis of scripture and faith, instead of science and reason? Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World warned about this danger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World

Scientific theories are testable, evolve as new data comes along, and lead to new knowledge and technology that improves the quality of life. By contrast, faith-based systems (i.e., religions and political ideologies) are forced upon us under threat of punishment, do not evolve much, and tends towards oppression, intolerance and violence. No, science is not based on faith.

I wonder if your assertion about the need for science for the survival of our species is entirely defensible. I am an Indian, and India and China had developed into fairly sophisticated civilisations long before the scientific revolution. For mere survival I doubt that science is a pre-requsit. Technology for survival predated science. Even James Watt did not have a correct understanding of the science of his engine. That came later with Rankine. But Watt's engines pumped water from mines working on the Rankine cycle long before Rankine analysed the thermodynamics of the steam engine. Of course you will say transistors could not come without science. That is true. Modern living depends quite a bit on science. However we could conceivably have got along without modern technology! In fact most of my countrymen do. I am an ardent admirer of science, but I admire the cultural impact of science more than all the material comforts it has given us. And foremost among the cultural effects of science is the liberation from dogma.

I don't know why you are so semantically preoccupied with "I believe...". It is inherently unqualified and unproven by definition (barring further elaboration), and, if taken as such, is of little danger. Unless we're discussing theology.

"I assumed...", on the other hand...

My personal use of the following three phrases...

I know... Things that I have experienced/can prove.

I believe... Things I can't prove or demonstrate but take on faith.

I think... I'm almost certain but wait here while I go look it up.

Science and engineering may use "I know" and should avoid "I believe"

Engineers designing large structures, particularly those that I ride in/drive across should never use "I think"

The problem I find is Convictions. Beliefs they can not or are not willing to change even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Closed minds and hedonistic egos. They can be lead by ther own BS to get the job done but I'd rather mentally masturbate on the real problems at hand. Quick someone kick out my soapbox from under me.

With out the belief of the individual in what they are trying to accomplish there is not much motivation. Many great discovery's have been made by people who's belief in some thing that at the time was thought absurd by others of the scientific community. Even in Columbus's belief the world was round we did not really have the real clincher until the first astronaut took that picture of the earth.

Each one of us take the knowledge that we have acquire in making our beliefs come true.

Man of the past has spent many nights looking at the moon as an unobtainable gold. Some one beleived we could go there. Mankind with the increase of knowledge have walk there.

I think belief is what drives scientific exploration.

Hi dbdwoods,

If one draws on one's own experience and intuition, he/she will find it easier to formulate the problem to be solved. However, once the problem has been clearly stated, there is no place in its solution for one's particular fancy. Strict rules must be followed, which lead to the solution almost automatically, leaving no room for intuition or "feeling". After an answer has been obtained, it should be checked. Then, if common sense and personal experience indicate an unsatisfactory solution, the parameters of the problem along with the validity of the methods used should then be re-examined.

Common sense and intuition may rightfully lead one to believe a particular solution to a problem is correct but whenever the problem involves engineering safety, one's "belief" must go by the wayside.

-John

We needed to believe ,before we could go to the moon ,very few people thought that was even a rational thought better yet having the belief it could happen .

It does take belief to be successful

even something as hard as cleaning the garage

you have to believe before you can move forward

And people ,that say you can't ,stand in the way of success.

Actually, I agree with you traditional. What you've just described is sort of a "means to an end". If we have a desire to accomplish a task then that may lead to a belief that we just might be able to do it. The next thing we need is motivation. Once we have that we begin the process of making it happen. At this point we need to separate our intuition that the solution is this way of that and allow scientific engineering principles to dictate the proper solution.

-John

In my humble opinion (IMHO?) the empirical practice of science, requires no faith, such as any belief-system would require.

By definition, faith, (or the requirement to believe) is placing your trust in something you cannot prove to exist or measure for traits and attributes.

Science is none of all that. In science, you trust and rely upon what you can repeatedly measure to the expected, coherent result.

Believing and faith, are irrelevant in such system.

Questions:

1. Do science and engineering depend on Mathematics?

2. Does Mathematics depend on axioms?

3. What is the basis for axioms?

Great answer! see my post #2 above!

milo

Science depends on mathematics only in the sense that theories uses maths as *tools*. When not relating to *empirically observed quantities*, mathematics has no practical use (though pure math still has beauty). Theories are not math -- they use math.

svengali (not signed in now)

I had read some where a neat version of what you are saying:-

"Faith is certainty without proof; while science is proof without certainty"

What proof is there of an axiom?

An axiom is not based on belief. It is based on such basic and elementary premise, that being the origin for the later evolved hypothesis, it relies on intuitive understanding, rather than proof.

If hypothesis that evolved from the axiom are being positively or negatively proved, it can only affirm the validity of the axiom, not the other way around!

What is the difference between faith and "basic and elementary premise" or "intuitive understanding"? Also, "affirm the validity of the axiom" seems to be the same as a belief that is affirmed based on faith in something. Then please consider what happens when two conflicting axioms both yield workable systems?

I hope you don't mind that I adopted that excellent phrase for my signature. I guess I should try to find out if it was coined by anyone in particular.

My take is you need to believe before you can achieve

You surely will fail if you don't believe in your endeavor.

Not to say that's scientific but human nature

and if you think you can ,your more likely to succeed

I have an aversion to negativity

I think I understand what you mean, and I basically agree. However, I would substitute the word "have confidence" in place of "believe". To me, "believe" is synonymous with "have faith". And "faith" means acceptance of an assertion despite the absence of supporting evidence. When I start out on a new research project, I have confidence (not faith) in my probable success. I have confidence because I have succeeded in previous similar endeavors. This means that I have supporting evidence to justify my confidence (of course I am not trying to do anything too radical like violating established laws of nature). I don't really think that any kind of supernatural being will provide any assistance, so faith seems irrelevant. Nor do I have "faith" in my chemistry colleagues -- I have *trust* in them because they earned it through a track record of integrity and results. These may sound like mere semantic distinctions to some, but proper semantics allow clearer communication of meaning.

I'm not religious so faith to me is interchangeable with confidence but believe it is a somewhat mystical word as well.

But I can't dump belief so quickly maybe there is a special quality to that ,which transcends confidence.

Other people are attracted to winning attitude's conversely repelled by loser's.

I have a belief in myself that has been proven by years of success so why change.

Donald Trump offers some insight ,Carnegy ,Alvin Toffler ,all have something to add on the subject.

There is even a new book and video "The Secret " that delves into it .

Not to say I'm sold on any one thing but I'll tell you from practical experience there is great power in the positive force of believing something can be done, that is a real catalyst to success.

I agree whole heartedly in supporting evidence but I think theres other issues that play, as important roles.

Well said. Yes, there may be mystical (mysterious; beyond-intellect) aspects to reality. We don't know everything, so we must leave room for such possibilities. I am agnostic, so I have no problem admitting this.

Best put belief is a life force

From following the elder Martial Arts masters, belief actually permits human flesh to do things "It was not designed to do". That said belief used to positive ends could do infinite good or the flip side of the coin.

What gets my goat is how belief is used to stop the natural progression of things. As soon as that word is used some people just shut off everything and set there full of self and a sense of accomplishment. I do wish I could use that kind of energy, but the actual real stop confounds my investigation.

I'm curious what you were getting to , please elaborate .

I know it's hard ,to write, what you could easily say .

Please try again the last line

A sound group of answers if I have ever had the pleasure of reviewing a peer review. However some of those original posters in another realm have not answered and just may not.

Hmmm, that is quite all right with me. In that realm the "Belief/Believe" set was used as a stop all investigation, stop thinking that way, stop what you are doing, and how dare you.

That sort of thing might wash in a political arena, and a gathering of mystics, and many many religious leaders use it daily. But what is it doing in an investigation scientifically of an event that is clearly recorded and the details of many "Facts" can be traced to their un-likely beginnings and un-probable ends?

Hey it's easy to be shut down and that can happen through peer pressure or a grander power that really has one under control. That said I have had my ears boxed quite a few times. I usually start my thinking somewhere off track from the advertised "Belief" pattern being sold. That kind of thing keeps me in trouble all of the time : - ) There is a Bee Gees song that puts it into perspective.

Since I have now renounced trying to get into trouble with every thought or spoken word I will need to ask my usual set of questions very differently from now on I guess?

Scientifically I do homage to the older cultures that have already been there and done that so many centuries before. It is impossible to comprehend the amount of lost knowledge and forbidden knowledge from times past. I find it shocking that in this newly christened "Golden Age" of scientific exploration that there are patterns of thought that stop the flow of truth. Since it really is not shocking, just a factor of the social manipulators who use us so well I should not even mention it. However when perusing a train of thought that will lead me astray I am there so much of the time.

So as a new train of thought can be brought to light I am wondering from this new set of thinkers a new associated question.

Should the "Myth Busting" approach be applied to situations where our "Human Emotional Patterns" have been sorely tried??? I mean can we question the "Status Quo" of our establishment and do we indeed have the right to do it?