Cosmologic philosophy: multiverse/string theory (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, January 04, 2015, 22:22 (3611 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

TONY: I'm well aware that you are not interested in gravity, and that lack of interest is of little relevance to the conversation at hand. What is relevant, is that you choose to believe in something which, contrary to your argument, is not testable, falsifiable, or observable, and your willingness to argue its case despite those failings. -I am baffled. My reference to “testable, falsifiable etc.” was in relation to the theory that if I ran full pelt into a lamppost I would hurt myself. As regards gravity, I wrote: “It appears that there is no universal consensus nowadays on the theory of gravity, in which case what I assumed was knowledge (i.e. there IS an attractive force which we humans call gravity) is not knowledge after all. I'm not that interested, so I'll leave it open.” Where have I argued the case for gravity? I wouldn't have a clue!-TONY: That my friend, is a small foray into the realm of faith. Faith is the assured expectation of things not beheld. Universal Consensus based on indirect observation is literally no different than universal faith in something. This is the arrogance of science, to think that, as an institution, it is somehow above faith.
-Science cannot be arrogant. It is some scientists who are arrogant. But you are using the word “faith” rather loosely. We make “small forays” into certain kinds of faith all the time. If I didn't have faith in the designers, engineers, mechanics, materials, pilots etc., I'd never step onto a plane. Your next paragraph shows the problem connected with your use of the word.
 
TONY: For all that I have said about it, I am not trying to criticize belief. But let me offer a counter to your phrasing here. Belief is think something is true, regardless of evidence (direct or indirect), while faith is based on an abundance of indirect observations for which we find an argument to be an overwhelmingly valid explanation. Knowledge, does not really belong to humanity. As you say, we have consensus, but all that consensus is, really, is faith. Faith that any and all of the assumptions that our knowledge is built upon is also correct, so that the conclusions that we reach are also correct. There is nothing that is not built upon assumptions somewhere.-We're back to epistemology: on an absolute level, there is no knowledge. And so on that level, of course science is not “above faith”. Scientists have to have faith that the materials they are examining are real, there is a link between cause and effect etc. As a layman I also have to have faith that not all scientists are arrogant, ignorant deceivers, and that if there is a consensus among them, there is a good chance that their conclusions are correct, e.g. the Earth does go round the sun. These “assumptions” allow us all to function on a lower, relative level and enable us to form beliefs. I agree that belief is something we think is true, and faith can mean exactly the same: regardless of the type of evidence, we regard the argument as valid. But faith can also mean trust or confidence in something or someone - nothing to do with arguments. And as you well know, it is used specifically in a religious context to mean both belief and trust in God. This is where your use of “faith” seems to me to be out of kilter. I can't see any link here with gravity. If an apple falls on my head, and scientists agree that it's because of an attractive force we call gravity, I'll be inclined to believe them. (If they disagree, I'll stay neutral). I'd never call belief in their theory “faith”: I wouldn't trust in gravity, or place my life in the hands of gravity, or think gravity would take care of me, protect me, keep me safe. On this epistemological level, belief in the theory of gravity has nothing to do with faith. 
 
To sum up, I agree that there is nothing that is not built upon assumptions somewhere. If we find that our assumptions are borne out by experience, our own assessment of the evidence, or universal agreement, we are likely to believe them: experience and assessment are subjective, and universal agreement is as close to objectivity as we can get, which is why we may call it knowledge (relative sense, not absolute).