Faith Well Grounded

I like the nice concise overview. You lose me here:
The point of this particular blogging subject is that science is in large part about faith.
You're painting with a very broad brush there. I can think of quite a few scientific disciplines where you'd be hard pressed to identify any sort of faith at work. However, since we're on the subject of theoretical physics, I'll grant you that some esoteric principles are often in play. In this particular example what you call "faith" in the Higgs boson is quite a different thing from your "other faith."

As you know, mathematical models are a bit divorced from reality. They are mental concoctions that are useful if they describe the real world reasonably accurately. When faced with the amount of unknowns at the fringes of physics, sometimes the best way to make progress is to imagine a solution and just try it out to see how it fits with what we see/experience. I wouldn't say the scientists have faith in the concocted solution, but they will cling to it as long as they feel it provides a useful description of reality. They will also drop it if it's demonstrated to be flawed.

For example, Newton's laws were shown to be accurate and have been used for quite some time in practical applications. You might say folks had "faith" that they were correct. Then Einstein came along and provided a MORE accurate description where Newton's laws failed. Our "faith" in Newton was shattered, right? Well, not really. Those imperfect mathematical constructs are still accurate enough in most situations to remain useful. We know that Newton wasn't correct, but he was close enough for most of us.

Here's another example of the faith: The phenomenon of light is alternately described as a particle and a wave. Sometimes it works best to think of it as a wave, sometimes as a particle. Which is correct? It's both! Or neither. Maybe it's something completely different, but we don't have any better analogies than a wave moving through a medium and a particle flying through space. We have faith that it acts LIKE a particle and a wave, but it wouldn't really surprise us if it were actually neither one.

The "faith" in the Higgs boson will be put to the test, and it will stand or fall on its merits. The "other faith" you speak of has different tests, but it will stand or fall on the merits of the person who holds it.

e-dogg,
I appreciate the reponse. I hope that this site continues to garner such open and intelligent discussions on these various subjects, and your reply will do well as a prototype for future comments.

You said:

You're painting with a very broad brush there. I can think of quite a few scientific disciplines where you'd be hard pressed to identify any sort of faith at work.

Isn't that the overriding point in question? Science is supposed to be that way. The bigger question is what to call those disciplines that aren't. Science? Metaphysics? Philosophy? And please don't misinterpret my intent. I am not arguing that such practices are useless or evil. Philosophy, etc... has moved manking forward in our development, and so will these disciplines, I'm sure. I'm merely saying that it isn't science as clasically defined.

And I understand your point as to how the statement was phrased. I appreciate your leeway in understanding the context that it was made. My intent was not science as a whole, but to speak to these new disciplines that are obviously basing much on faith.

Your mention to the mathematical models is appropriate to the discussion, I think. If I had handed in my college geometry papers with an inserted invention to make them "add up", would that have been acceptable? More importantly, would that have been geometry? Even if I had said, "Look, I peeked at the answers and knew what they should have been, so the invented insertion merely produced what I knew to be the case." Is that geometry?

The Higgs boson is used in the same manner. And, with much due repect to your reply, I must say that I don't see the distinctions in faith as obviously as you do. You compare the two as if the theist's faith is not based on reasonably weighing the evidences available.. The theist can look logically and reasonably about himself and see the need and reality of God. The arguments-- cosmological, teleological, ontological, etc... -- all lead the theist to the reasonable conclusion that a sufficient cause must have preexisted, created, and is supporting what we see here. Logic and reason can even give us clues to the attributes of this sufficient cause.

It/He would have to be more intelligent than all of the intelligence in the Universe, more powerful than all of the power in the Universe, eternal (due to the fact that it/He created time), etc... Now, my intent with these quick jots of logic is obviously not to prove God, but to try and show that the differences between the faiths are minimal in that respect. The studied and reasonable theist has good basis for his belief. The theoretical physicist can claim the same. But I believe theists in general are more inclined to admit their faith and call it what it is.

I believe we probably agree on the matter more than either of us think. Your reference to the "fringes of physics" indicates that you at least recognize the overall point I was making.

Thanks again for your input. It is refreshing to have these discussions with such well-"spoken"(i.e. written) and respectful people as yourself. Please do drop in often and continue to add value to this humble blog.

Be blessed.

Isn't that the overriding point in question? Science is supposed to be that way. The bigger question is what to call those disciplines that aren't. Science? Metaphysics? Philosophy?
So now we're at the meat of it. I agree that some of the exercises on these subjects cross the line into philosophy. I suppose it's generally still called "science" because it's being done by scientists.

Their ultimate goal is to produce results via the scientific method, after all. It's just the nature of the subject that currently we don't know enough to progress much beyond the earliest phases of the method. There was a point when ideas about subatomic particles were in this same sort of fringe, and before that atoms, and molecules, etc. Along the way, lots of other hypotheses were presented and rejected.

Scientists don't really have faith in a particular construct they've created (e.g., Higgs Boson). They DO have faith in the overall method. We've learned that the scientific method is a reliable way to increase our knowledge. But even this faith isn't absolute. If someone comes along with a more reliable, easier, or quicker method, it'll surely be adopted.

Now, let's address the parallel (no pun intended) between the Higgs Boson and your example of the geometry paper with an artificial construct thrown in to give the right answer. We'll consider your invention as an hypothesis that you offer as explanation for the equation at hand. Your professor will likely reject that hypothesis utilizing an abbreviated form of the scientific method. In his mind he might ask questions like: Is it repeatable? Does it provide consistent results that agree with reality? If it survives this process, congratulations--you've made a new discovery, or maybe you've come up with a previously known solution without having first learned about it.

The Higgs Boson will be put to the same test, though it'll take quite a bit more time to get the results. It's still just an hypothesis. Much like the Bill in the old Schoolhouse Rock cartoon, it's starting a journey with many chances for it to meet its demise. There isn't faith in the Boson, but there is faith that SOME explanation exists.

Now, theistic faith is a bit different. Sure, it's often based on observations, experience, and logical inference, but it's in a realm that science can't approach. A person's faith is generally not testable in the scientific sense. The core ideas aren't falsifiable. There is no way to disprove the existence of a being outside the observable universe, because proof, by definition, requires observation. When a scientist proposes an hypothesis, he does so knowing full well that it might be shown to be incorrect. A theist's faith isn't subjected to such external threat. If I truly believe the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, there's nothing you can do to prove me wrong. That faith is tested by internal pressures, however. A different set of rules are at work here, and it involves things like emotion, feeling, and intuition.

You said:

Now, let's address the parallel (no pun intended) between the Higgs Boson and your example of the geometry paper with an artificial construct thrown in to give the right answer. We'll consider your invention as an hypothesis that you offer as explanation for the equation at hand. Your professor will likely reject that hypothesis utilizing an abbreviated form of the scientific method. In his mind he might ask questions like: Is it repeatable? Does it provide consistent results that agree with reality?

Your responses here indicate you know quite a bit about both the Higgs mechanism and the scientific process in general. You therefor are probably also familliar with the problems with the Higgs mechanism besides the one that I listed, such as the inconsistent results as compared to reality. For instance, when the Higgs mechanism is inserted, it predicts that gluons would be massless, which is outside the expected results of the model itself. So again, it appears the differences in the parallel are not so great. Has the scientific process asked the same questions as the Chemistry teacher? Has the mechanism passed the evaluation better than my atrificial construct/hypothesis?

Again, I'm not stating that such attempts are invalid; I'm merely pointing out the new face of science, and its reliance on the unobserved. We could also discuss dark matter in the same way. The same could be said of evolution.

Again, we see very close to "eye to eye" on these subjects. It appears that we disagree on terminology and the comparison to theistic faith. That's fine. But quite often, modern scientific theory is treading the roads of the philosopher in postulating on that which is by definition untestable, nonrepeatable and can make no prediction. By definition, when science speaks on other matters upon which modern physics is now speaking (such as cosmology, for instance), it is playing the role of philosophy. By definition, cosmology is nonrepeatable, nontestable, and nonpredictive.

When scientists postulate on other such matters, such as alternate universes, which by definition will never be observed, tested or predicted, are they still speaking as scientists? or as philosophers? I'm not trying to pull the old "bait and switch" on you. We were discussing the Higgs mechanism and I realize these grander subjects were not in the discussion. But since the discussion is now concerning the scientific process and its firmer grounding in reality than theologians, I think it important to define just where that process ends.

Many scientists today are speaking from the professional "pulpit". Their credentials garner them much respect in the public's eyes. I would ask you at what point do they need to throw out a disclaimer that they are no longer speaking from observation? At what point have they deviated from the scientific process that you and I both respect? At what point have they entered the areas of metaphysics and philosophy?

Thanks again for your thought-provoking replies. It's nice that we can hold our opinions and agree to disagree.

Be blessed...