2006-09-20 12:30:32 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Of course. You must have faith that your senses and the scientific method put together will tell you what is true. In other words, you must believe that your thoughts are not simply random chemical reactions in your brain.
Xan Shui,
Philosophic Philanthropist, Honest Man
2006-09-20 23:51:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd argue that yes, faith is required for scientific "beliefs." No matter what scientists say (and most of the ones I know are just as dogmatic as any fundamentalist), the worldview to which most scientists subscribe is actually a kind of structured belief system--scientific materialism. Scientists like to make a lot of noise about objectivity and describing what actually, factually happens and leaving speculation out of things, but in reality, scientific processes require just as much trust, just as much willingness to ignore certain competing ideas, as almost any religious worldview I've encountered.
2006-09-20 22:13:56 · answer #2 · answered by k. 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. All of science is dedicated to finding truthful results that can be observed and replicated by anyone.
Now, in the real world I can't possibly replicate every single experiment, study, or observation that every scientist makes, so it would be impossible for me to directly confirm everything for myself. But inherent in the scientific method is that results are not considered acceptable until some person/group other than the original experimenter/observer independently verifies results or observations -- and that the verifying group has no connection (either academically or monetarily) with the original group. That calls for an element of TRUST on our part, that all of the different people working on a problem aren't colluding in an effort to deceive us...but trust is very different from faith. And although there have been attempts to falsify or deceive in science, those attempts have always been uncovered (by others trying to replicate results), and publicized. Science is self-correcting and holds itself to rigorous standards of repeatibility -- which faith-based belief systems most certainly do not.
2006-09-20 19:40:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Fascinating question!
Faith is required for some scientific belief; those beliefs are known as theories.
2006-09-21 04:34:08 · answer #4 · answered by Temple 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the sense that skepticism is required for the scientific method, faith is generally considered the anti-thesis of science. For example, Newton's theory of universal gravitation was considered reality until evidence showed the science community, Einstein, among others, that matter curves space.
2006-09-20 20:25:09 · answer #5 · answered by robertspraguejr 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not in the sense that most people mean the word. In fact, the scientific process can be interpreted as the opposite of faith. Faith means accepting something as truth without question, and science is based on questioning everything.
But, in the strictest meaning of the word, it does require some faith. You have to beleive that what is true today will be true always. That gravity will not spontaneously reverse itself, for example.
2006-09-20 19:34:55 · answer #6 · answered by juicy_wishun 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Belief in time is fundamental to science. There is no way to palpate time. There is no color of time, no sound, no direct measure of time. (Clocks measure motion and speed.) There is no proof of time. The reality is that time is a convenient delusion that allowed the first stage of science to be born: Newtonian Mechanics, Thermal Dynamics, Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, et. al.. Faith in time is the lynch pin of modern science. Belief in time is the hobgoblin that is currently thwarting further development. Currently there is a compression in research and no scientist is currently trying look around time to get to the other side. Notions of speed/velocity/movement/change need to be fundamentally re-conceived without time in order for science to make the quantum leap to the second stage. The destruction of time is necessary before science can move to the second stage of development. If time is destroyed we will have to recreate physics from the ground up. It is a nihilistic suggestion to kill time just as it is a nihilistic suggestion to kill God. No intelligent person would be willing to do either. What do you think?
2006-09-20 20:03:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Religious faith? Absolutely not.
Faith in the laws of physical reality are required!
2006-09-20 22:13:28 · answer #8 · answered by Keenu 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You need what I call "small f" faith, e.g., faith in the scientific method or some analogue. Don't need the "Big F" Faith, though.
2006-09-20 19:43:11 · answer #9 · answered by larry n 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Scientific ideas have to meet certain goals and have to be proven.
2006-09-20 19:39:38 · answer #10 · answered by worldneverchanges 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋