100% results
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-03-2013, 09:36 AM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2013 12:47 PM by Hennepin.)
100% results
Recently I was chatting with a coworker of mine when our conversation turned toward science and scientific studies. It was her position that science takes "faith that the tests and proof are actual and not just your own interpretation" to which I posed a question "What if the tests are done across multiple labs with the same variables and the same
results occur, that makes them pretty accurate right?"

I guess I shouldn't have been suprised that she stood her ground she's quite strong about her opinions but I didn't have time to refute what came up next and I plan on doing that later today but since the whole conversation piqued my interest I thought I'd toss this out to you guys to get your interpretation.

She went on to say that "(Science) still takes faith that the results are accurate, as
nothing is 100% provable because there are factors such as human error,
etc"..."the results are NEVER 100%"

The direction that came initially to mind when hearing this was what about computer science (my chosen field of study) things don't really get too much more concrete than 1's and 0's lol although I have a feeling she's not talking about that field of science and would disregard my arguement. :sigh:

TL;DR? :: I'm just curious what you guys think about the whole thing? Does science require faith?And what studies would you use to back up your claim that it does or doesn't?

Talent hits the target no one else can hit, while genius hits the target no one knew existed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2013, 09:54 AM
RE: 100% results
Does science require faith?

For scientists, not really. They do their jobs, their own research, figure out what they need to know - they're right in the middle of it and can see and test and verify as much as they need to.

For me, a little. I am not a scientist, so I can either believe what a scientist tells me or disbelieve it. I place some faith that he has done due diligence, that he is peer-reviewed, that he has passed the standards of scientific veracity. I almost never check his credentials or read his published works so I guess I am taking it somewhat on faith that the process is working and the scientist is reporting valid accurate science instead of junk science.

But that isn't a requirement of science. I could do the work myself to vet the scientist and check his work and his credentials and be certain without faith, but I have better things to do with my time. Usually.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
12-03-2013, 09:55 AM
RE: 100% results
(12-03-2013 09:36 AM)Hennepin Wrote:  Recently I was chatting with a coworker of mine when our conversation turned toward science and scientific studies. It was her position that science takes "faith that the tests and proof are actual and not just your own interpretation" to which I posed a question "What if the tests are done across multiple labs with the same variables and the same
results occur, that makes them pretty accurate right?"

I guess I shouldn't have been suprised that she stood her ground she's quite strong about her opinions but I didn't have time to refute what came up next and I plan on doing that later today but since the whole conversation piqued my interest I thought I'd toss this out to you guys to get your interpretation.

She went on to say that "(Science) still takes faith that the results are accurate, as
nothing is 100% provable because there are factors such as human error,
etc"..."the results are NEVER 100%"

The direction that came initially to mind when hearing this was what about computer science (my chosen field of study) things don't really get too much more concrete than 1's and 0's lol although I have a feeling she's not talking about that field of science and would disregard my arguement. :sigh:

TL;DR? :: I'm just curious what you guys think about the whole thing? Does science require faith?And what studies would you use to back up your claim that it does or doesn't?
Your friend is wrong. There is no faith in science. In any experiment, the results are solid and if these results can be constantly duplicated, they are 100% correct.

~Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kellyrm's post
12-03-2013, 10:06 AM
RE: 100% results
She's leveling. It's a common psychological ploy that people use (unconsciously) to try and either bring their irrational beliefs up to the level of yours or bring your rational arguments down to the level of theirs. And it's not just religion/atheism that people use it on.

But regarding her argument, let's say she's correct for a moment and assume that we can never really be 100% sure. That means we never really know that we're eating an orange when we peel a spherical, orange colored fruit with juicy insides. What about our house? How do we really know for 100% sure that the house we're in is actually our house? If you cut your hand with a razor blade, how do you really know for 100% certainty that you need stitches? After all, it could just be a superficial cut that only needs a band aid. Should I not write this post because I'm not 100% sure you'll even see it?

Of course not. What I've said above is absurd. But no more absurd than what she's said. Why? Because with everything we do we find a level of confirmation that's acceptable. If that level is only 99.999999999% in science, then fine, that's the level. And it apparently works because we have all this cool shit around us that the baby jesus' sky daddy didn't invent. Now, can we get on with life and stop with all this useless mental masturbation??

You might also try and nail her down on the percentage of confirmation she requires in order that she alters her entire fucking life for the sake of a being that no one has ever heard, seen, smelled, felt, or otherwise detected in any manner whatever. Surely it's less than 100%, wouldn't you think?

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like bbeljefe's post
12-03-2013, 10:14 AM
RE: 100% results
Has she 100% proven that nothing is 100% provable? Drinking Beverage

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Vosur's post
12-03-2013, 12:43 PM
RE: 100% results
(12-03-2013 10:06 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  ...You might also try and nail her down on the percentage of confirmation she requires in order that she alters her entire fucking life for the sake of a being that no one has ever heard, seen, smelled, felt, or otherwise detected in any manner whatever. Surely it's less than 100%, wouldn't you think?
I love the rest of your comment, you phrase things very well, however this discussion has nothing to do with any deities and while I'll agree that she has some odd perspectives she's never indicated any preferences toward any religions so let's leave those personal attacks for the one's that assert their beliefs shall we? Thanks for your reply it was very well written.


Vosur Wrote:Has she 100% proven that nothing is 100% provable?
I'm thinking about using this hahaha although I'm not sure it will be well received it might still be fun to see a reaction

Talent hits the target no one else can hit, while genius hits the target no one knew existed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2013, 01:46 PM
RE: 100% results
Results of tests are not disputable, especially if they can be recreated independently. Major point is they must be criticised independently too. The thing is the beauty of science is that it's set up so that even if someone tries to bullshit the system they'll be easily found out - witness the scientific fraud scandals like that South Korean geneticist etc. That didn't take long to find out - people tried and failed to replicate his results, smelled a rat, and called bullshit.

*Interpretation* is subject to change - we can't really be sure we've found the absolutely correct theory because of the nature of empirical testing and the limitations of ourselves and the fact that we're stuck to some random ball of rock in the middle of nowhere. But we can be sure of some things, more or less. Like as many religious people put it, we can't *guarantee* that some magical being didn't create the entire she-bang last Tuesday, cleverly faked to look much older. But we can at least say that there must have been some very clever fakery.

And that comes down to making probability assessments. Is it impossible that Santa exists ? Well... I can't see how to prove not, because the nature of Santa is badly defined and I can make all kinds of reasons why he didn't come down *my* chimney etc. But it's *highly* unlikely given what we've observed of how things work around this heah part of the universe.

I say science does require some faith. First off, faith in those who've done their homework before you, that they got it right and you don't have to check every damn fact. Faith that cheaters will get caught - well justified faith incidentally. And faith in yourself, if you *do* science, to believe that your monkey brain can puzzle shit out and come to correct conclusions through a process of hard thought.

The most important thing though, is that *everything* is free to question. There is no declaration that this is true by default and we must a priori accept it. Even the foundations of maths are periodically questioned by some bright spark who doesn't buy the idea of proof by contradiction or something else - *nothing* must be sacred.

The contrast with the religious idea of faith, where some statements of "truth" are declared off limits for critical assessment, and truth is discovered by apparently receiving radio transmissions from the very creator of the universe... I know which one I'm betting on to lead me to correct understanding Tongue

Apologies - this got long Tongue Oh well...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
12-03-2013, 05:13 PM
RE: 100% results
(12-03-2013 09:36 AM)Hennepin Wrote:  Recently I was chatting with a coworker of mine when our conversation turned toward science and scientific studies. It was her position that science takes "faith that the tests and proof are actual and not just your own interpretation" to which I posed a question "What if the tests are done across multiple labs with the same variables and the same
results occur, that makes them pretty accurate right?"

I guess I shouldn't have been suprised that she stood her ground she's quite strong about her opinions but I didn't have time to refute what came up next and I plan on doing that later today but since the whole conversation piqued my interest I thought I'd toss this out to you guys to get your interpretation.

She went on to say that "(Science) still takes faith that the results are accurate, as
nothing is 100% provable because there are factors such as human error,
etc"..."the results are NEVER 100%"

The direction that came initially to mind when hearing this was what about computer science (my chosen field of study) things don't really get too much more concrete than 1's and 0's lol although I have a feeling she's not talking about that field of science and would disregard my arguement. :sigh:

TL;DR? :: I'm just curious what you guys think about the whole thing? Does science require faith?And what studies would you use to back up your claim that it does or doesn't?
I agree with your co worker.

To say that science is 100% IMO is the same as being sure of going to Heaven.

Now high degrees of probability, geared to testing, peer review, maths, and logic; this is a completely differnt scenario.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2013, 12:50 AM
RE: 100% results
(12-03-2013 09:55 AM)kellyrm Wrote:  
(12-03-2013 09:36 AM)Hennepin Wrote:  Recently I was chatting with a coworker of mine when our conversation turned toward science and scientific studies. It was her position that science takes "faith that the tests and proof are actual and not just your own interpretation" to which I posed a question "What if the tests are done across multiple labs with the same variables and the same
results occur, that makes them pretty accurate right?"

I guess I shouldn't have been suprised that she stood her ground she's quite strong about her opinions but I didn't have time to refute what came up next and I plan on doing that later today but since the whole conversation piqued my interest I thought I'd toss this out to you guys to get your interpretation.

She went on to say that "(Science) still takes faith that the results are accurate, as
nothing is 100% provable because there are factors such as human error,
etc"..."the results are NEVER 100%"

The direction that came initially to mind when hearing this was what about computer science (my chosen field of study) things don't really get too much more concrete than 1's and 0's lol although I have a feeling she's not talking about that field of science and would disregard my arguement. :sigh:

TL;DR? :: I'm just curious what you guys think about the whole thing? Does science require faith?And what studies would you use to back up your claim that it does or doesn't?
Your friend is wrong. There is no faith in science. In any experiment, the results are solid and if these results can be constantly duplicated, they are 100% correct.



They say the speed of light in a vacuum is constant...but is it? Why couldn't it be that the speed of light in a vacuum is randomly determined at the time each photon is created and just by pure happenstance, every photon we've observed just happened to be going at the same speed? That's not very likely. It is so unlikely that we can pretty much dimiss it but remember it also not logically impossible. The point is you can never really be 100% sure about anything.

This not being 100% sure isn't just a human condition. It applies to the gods as well. It should be within the abilities of an all power being to create a lessor being and trick or fool that lessor being into believing that it was god. Now if you are God, wouldn't you be wondering, "I am God or am I being fooled into believing I am god by the real God?" If God exists, I suspect that He believes, as a matter of faith, that He indeed is the real God.

There is nothing wrong with faith. Faith is practical and if it is good enough for the gods, then surely it is good enough for us humans too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2013, 01:55 AM
RE: 100% results
(13-03-2013 12:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(12-03-2013 09:55 AM)kellyrm Wrote:  Your friend is wrong. There is no faith in science. In any experiment, the results are solid and if these results can be constantly duplicated, they are 100% correct.



They say the speed of light in a vacuum is constant...but is it? Why couldn't it be that the speed of light in a vacuum is randomly determined at the time each photon is created and just by pure happenstance, every photon we've observed just happened to be going at the same speed? That's not very likely. It is so unlikely that we can pretty much dimiss it but remember it also not logically impossible. The point is you can never really be 100% sure about anything.

This not being 100% sure isn't just a human condition. It applies to the gods as well. It should be within the abilities of an all power being to create a lessor being and trick or fool that lessor being into believing that it was god. Now if you are God, wouldn't you be wondering, "I am God or am I being fooled into believing I am god by the real God?" If God exists, I suspect that He believes, as a matter of faith, that He indeed is the real God.

There is nothing wrong with faith. Faith is practical and if it is good enough for the gods, then surely it is good enough for us humans too.

If it's good enough for Pee Wee, it's definitely good enough for you. Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: