faith in science

Faith in Science

Until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the

universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

These be fightin' words!

The general idea offered by Paul Davies in a NYTimes editorial

yesterday is that science is actually based on faith - specifically

that scientists mus adopt a belief that the universe is ordered and

has special conditions that enable life. You can expect there is

another another side to this story. Actually, many other sides. I

appreciate the concluding statement in PZ Myers' lengthy rebuke:

Maybe Davies has faith in science, but I don't. I take it as it

comes. I have expectations and hypotheses, but these are lesser

presuppositions than what is implied by faith--and I'm also open to

the possibility that any predictions I might make will fail.

Of all the responses that I have read, I most appreciate Dr.

Free-Ride's distinction between metaphysical commitments and

methodological strategies. When discussing the perspectives of

scientists in action (Latour reference intended), it is important to

consider what the practitioners recognize as the foundation of their

activities. In the trenches of wet labs, field plots, and modeling

suites, there are many more scientists willing to accept the utility

of empiricism than a theory of universal existence. Don't get me

wrong: many scientists do nurture their own metaphysical understanding

of the universe, but my guess is that the color of those beliefs

varies widely between individual. When it comes down to it, I think

that most scientists do experiments and leave questions of metaphysics

to the philosophers and theologians.

I think that my resistance to Davies' article is founded on the

comparative comfort that cosmologists have in talking about origins,

faith and world-views relative to other scientists - especially

biologists. Maybe I am jealous that cosmologists can write in the New

York Times about science and faith, while in the current setting, most

biologists must pick a side: science or faith. Some readers are not

willing even to grant cosmologists the right to seek common ground

between science and religion.

I applaud Davies' efforts to point out an important understudied

element of existence - origins - but agree with many other blogs that

he was clumsy in his attempt. Anyway, is science even capable of