Science is Based on Faith like Theism?

[Age]

I have read Polanyi's Science, Faith and Society first round.
Here is a general view and we can go into the details if need be.

I noted Polanyi's focus is not so much on 'faith' which is of the typical definition, i.e.
faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

I have not seen him give any summary like this. Please supply the reference.

I have read Polanyi's book' he did not provide the above summary, but I had summarized from what I have read from his book.

Hey! did you read my above post thoroughly, here again;

• He [Polanyi] merely mentioned faith-proper a few times;

ONCE MORE, WHY do you continually add the 'proper' word onto and after another word, as though the 'proper' word adds some sort of more significance or more truth?

Or, in other words, WHY do 'you', "veritas aequitas", ALWAYS BELIEVE that 'your' OWN version of some 'thing' is the 'proper' version?

I do not assert that eternal Truths are automatically upheld by men.
We have learnt that they can be very effectively denied by modern man.
Belief in them can therefore be upheld now only in the form of an explicit profession of faith.

Thus to accord validity to Science—or to any other of the … domains of the mind—is to express a faith which can be …ld only within a community.
We realize here the connection between Science, Faith and Society adumbrated in essays.[/list]

One can get an idea of what 'faith' meant to Polanyi from the above, see point below;

"faith" is conviction that TRUTH [God] exists without a need for empirical proofs which are limited to personal knowledge and the human conditions.

That's clearly your own invented definition, or one you borrowed from somebody who'd never considered anything but the debased version of "faith," what Sartre calls, "bad faith."

Nope.
The above is how I interpret as Polanyi's idea of 'what is faith'.
If not, show me with reference, what do you think is Polanyi's definition of what is faith.

There is no such thing as a mind-independent TRUTH hidden beyond all phenomenon that science and other fields of human knowledge.

The statement you just made above is presented to me as a mind-independent truth, is it not?

The statement I posted is presented in association with my mind, so it cannot be mind-independent truth.

If it's not, then all you mean is, "VA thinks there is no mind-independent truth, but that's just in VA's mind." But if that's all you mean, then nobody has to agree. All it means is, "VA doesn't know any mind-independent truths."

On the other hand, if you're presenting it to other people as something they ought to believe, you're having to assert it as a mind-independent truth.
You have to be implying, "Whether your mind knows it or not, there is no truth for you to know."

But then, you've just declared a mind-independent truth.

Since you're going to be mistaken both ways, we can ignore that claim.

My argument 'there is no mind-independent truth' is based on this argument;

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
i.e.

• 1. Theists believe in a mind-independent God [the absolute truth] which is grounded on Philosophical Realism;
  2. Philosophical Realism is illusory [argument above]
  3. Therefore God is an illusion.

In addition,
Polanyi assume that science is based on philosophical realism, i.e. there is a mind-independent Truth that science is trying to discover.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
During his time in the 1940s, logical positivism was the dominant forces using science as their backing.
Polanyi argued against logical positivism and scientism pointing out that atheists were chasing after the false truths, whereas there is an ultimate truth i.e. God. Note the references I quoted in blue in my previous post.

You threw in Polanyi's book to insist that science relied on faith like those of theism.
However, I don't see that as the main theme in Polanyi's book.

As I had argued, science as practiced since the beginning is based on 'empirical adequacy' plus critical thinking with the acknowledgement of its inherent weaknesses.
Most modern scientists reject the view that science is striving to discover mind-independent truths out there and is getting closer and closer to them.
Van Fraasen: There are No Laws of Nature [mind-independent or from God]
viewtopic.php?t=40451

If any faith is relied upon by scientist, it is insignificant that is polished off via intersubjective peer reviews and consensus.

Popper had stated and many agreed, scientific truths are at best 'polished conjectures' or 'polished hypothesis' which can be rejected upon new evidence that show otherwise.
Despite is weaknesses, Objective Scientific truths and facts conditioned upon the scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective which is the standard for all other FSKs.

Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286


What other truths can be more objective than the scientific truths and objectivity [even taking into account its weaknesses]?

[Age]

That's clearly your own invented definition, or one you borrowed from somebody who'd never considered anything but the debased version of "faith," what Sartre calls, "bad faith."

Nope.
The above is how I interpret as Polanyi's idea of 'what is faith'.

"How I interpret"? Why should we care how somebody else chooses to merely "interpret"?

YET, what 'you', adult human beings, have been doing for thousands upon thousands of years, hitherto when this is being written, is more or less just INTERPRET what "others" have been SAYING, and WRITING.

For IRREFUTABLE PROOF of 'this' just LOOK AT 'your' OWN WRITINGS here.

What matters is only if it's true for both of us; and you'd need to show it is.

As I have been alluding to here, 'What 'it' is that ALL AGREE WITH and ACCEPT is what IS ONLY IMPORTANT here'. And, what WILL lead 'you' ALL INTO the KINGDOM of Peace and Harmony, or as some of 'you' KNOW 'it' as Heaven, Itself.

In other words, you'd need to show it as an objective truth, which, as below, you've insisted is impossible.

The statement you just made above is presented to me as a mind-independent truth, is it not?

The statement I posted is presented in association with my mind, so it cannot be mind-independent truth.

That's a mental error.

To say that something passes through one's mind doesn't say that it's a "truth." It might well be nothing but a delusion, in such a case. Delusions happen. Whether it's a truth or not will depend on whether or not reality corresponds to that belief one holds.

If your declaration is presented as an objective truth, then it's falsified your claim that truth is mind-dependent: it will be always and universally true, whether your mind knows it or not. But if you're offering at as merely mind-dependent, your own feeling or subjective view, then my mind and the minds of others do have any reason to accept what you believe.

Either your argument self-defeats, as in the first case, or it fails to matter, as in the second.

Pick your way to fail, I guess.

If it's not, then all you mean is, "VA thinks there is no mind-independent truth, but that's just in VA's mind." But if that's all you mean, then nobody has to agree. All it means is, "VA doesn't know any mind-independent truths."

On the other hand, if you're presenting it to other people as something they ought to believe, you're having to assert it as a mind-independent truth.
You have to be implying, "Whether your mind knows it or not, there is no truth for you to know."

But then, you've just declared a mind-independent truth.

Since you're going to be mistaken both ways, we can ignore that claim.

My argument 'there is no mind-independent truth' is based on this argument...

We don't care. And we don't have to care. Truth, you tell us, is "mind dependent." And our minds don't agree with yours, perhaps. But if you say we must care, then you've tried to declare an objective truth, and truth isn't "mind-dependent."

That's a pretty obvious catch-22. Your argument there is so obviously wrong there's nothing left to say to save it.

Pick your way to fail. There's no other option left, given your suppositions.

[Immanuel Can]

YET...

I'm utterly uninterested in you, Age. I have yet to see one post from you that shows any grasp at all of anything relevant to any topic.

Surprise me, one day.

That day is clearly not today.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If your declaration is presented as an objective truth, then it's falsified your claim that truth is mind-dependent: it will be always and universally true, whether your mind knows it or not.
But if you're offering at as merely mind-dependent, your own feeling or subjective view, then my mind and the minds of others do have any reason to accept what you believe.

Either your argument self-defeats, as in the first case, or it fails to matter, as in the second.
Pick your way to fail, I guess.

Let me present some basic re 'mind-independence' [re Polanyi] to avoid talking pass each other;

Note this;
Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
i.e.

• 1. The human-based FSR-FSK-ed sense of reality [scientific-FSK - the Standard]
  
  2. The philosophical realism mind-independent sense of reality.

• • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
    Philosophical Realism – ...– is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.

The final point re philosophical realism is such that the moon pre-existed humans and will even exists after humans are extinct.

I have argued and challenged PH and other p-realists;
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
PH had not been able to prove his mind-independent real fact [reality] is really real.
Thus the p-realists claim that mind-independent things are really real is based on FAITH.

Poster like PH & gang, actually 95% of poster at present are Philosophical Realists.
Theists are also philosophical realists i.e. they believe God is a mind-independent entity, so is all other things created by God, other than themselves.

Anti-Philosophical_Realists reject Philosophical Realism i.e. in my case [Kantian], claim that reality and things CANNOT be mind-independent. [the opposite term 'mind-dependent' is not used because that can be very misleading]. The reality is, somehow the mind is entangled with reality, thus cannot be absolutely independent.

The above Philosophical Realism vs Anti-Philosophical_Realism [as a convenience, I will use realism vs anti-realism] is extended to Science. Thus we have;

1. Scientific Realism adopted by Philosophical Realist
2. Scientific anti-realism adopted by ANTI-Philosophical_Realism.

Polanyi's view is that of Scientific Realism which is grounded on philosophical realism.
Since philosophical realism is ultimately based on FAITH,
science is ultimately grounded FAITH
which Polanyi [as a scientists] had argued in his book.
According to Polanyi the basis of FAITH in science is no different from the FAITH as in theism.

As such, PH & gang and other p-realists has no grounds to defend against Polanyi's charge that science is based on FAITH which is in the same boat as the theists' reliance on FAITH to believe God is real.

BUT, the ANTI-Philosophical-realists view of reality and science is NOT based on FAITH like that of realism.
Scientific anti-realism is grounded upon a human-based FSR-FSK-ed sense of reality, of which the scientific-FSK is the most credible, thus is the Standard FSK.
If there is any element of faith in scientific anti-realism, it is insignificant to the ontology in science.

Thus I agree with Polanyi's charge of FAITH against those who adopt scientific realism.
However Polanyi's charge has no impact on those adopt scientific anti-realism which is more realistic.

My points;
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Theism is grounded on philosophical realism

It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

[Iwannaplato]

According to Polanyi the basis of FAITH in science is no different from the FAITH as in theism.

Could you show where Polyani writes/talks about science being based on faith?

[Veritas Aequitas]

According to Polanyi the basis of FAITH in science is no different from the FAITH as in theism.

Could you show where Polyani writes/talks about science being based on faith?

Polanyi's view is based on philosophical realism which grounded his theism and scientific-realism.

As quoted in this post;

• viewtopic.php?p=658483#p658483
  "Thus to accord validity to Science—or to any other of the … domains of the mind—is to express a faith which can be …ld only within a community.
  We realize here he connection between Science, Faith and Society adumbrated in essays."

The first para of Polanyi's Science, Faith and Society,

• "I SHALL re-examine here the suppositions underlying our belief in science and propose to show that they [the suppositions] are more extensive than is usually thought.
  They [the suppositions] will appear to co-extend with the entire spiritual foundations of man and to go to the very root of his social existence.
  Hence, I will urge, our belief in science should be regarded as a token of much wider convictions."

The argument of his whole book is how Science is based on faith which is similar to that of theism.
Thus when science discover its ultimate reality, that would be God.

• "If the intellectual and moral tasks of society rest in the last resort on the free consciences of every generation, and these are continually making essentially new additions to our spiritual heritage, we may well assume that they are in continuous communication with the same source which first gave men their society-forming knowledge of abiding things.
  How near that source is to God I shall not try to conjecture.
  But I would express my belief that modern man will eventually return to God through the clarification of his cultural and social purposes.
  Knowledge of reality and the acceptance of obligations which guide our consciences, once firmly realized, will reveal to us God in man and society."

"Knowledge of reality" in this case is reference to mainly to Science which is the focus of his book.

[Age]

Science may include some faith. Many people approach scientific information with an underlying faith that it is reliable.
But it is idiotic to say that science is BASED on faith since that would mean no science was ever done.

That depends on what is meant by "based on."

No. Not really.

Science relies on evidence and experimentation. There is no faith involved in the process, though their can be speculation, hypothesis and testing. But the science has to work else it fails.

Are 'you', people, even AWARE that 'you' HAVE and USE DIFFERENT definitions for the words that you USE, and that 'this' is just WHY 'you' have DISAGREEMENTS, and QUARREL ABOUT 'things'?

Do 'you' KNOW 'you' just HAVE and ARE USING a DIFFERENT definition for the 'science' word here?

This seems to be the very opposite of religion. Theism has never significantly attempted to so much as reconcile the facts of nature with the view of god it has faith in.

But there IS, and WAS, absolutely NOTHING to 'reconcile' here, other than 'your' OWN MISINTERPRETATIONS and Wrong DEFINITIONS, OF COURSE.

There is NOT one ACTUAL True VIEW of God, which does NOT ALIGN with the ACTUAL Truth of Nature. But, OF COURSE, the INDIVIDUAL INTERPRETATIONS and VIEWS that 'you', adult human beings, HAVE, OBVIOUSLY, do NOT ALIGN with the ACTUAL Truth of 'things', nor with the ACTUAL True nature of 'things'.

'This' will become MORE CLEARER and OBVIOUS as 'you' progress forward and START TO LEARN HOW TO FIND and SEE the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

This is true even though there was a significant movement in the peri-enlightenment to "know the nature of god" through the "book of nature". it seems what they uncovered inevitably led to deism and more atheism, whilst the theists ran for cover, continuing to split, fragment and build more cults and schisms, so that christanity conintued to be an increasingly desperate and fragmentary ideology wholly based on faith.

[Sculptor]

Everyday as the earth passing into shadow, and as it passes out of that shadow, millions, nay billons of people enter into a strange ritual. They do it thoughtlessly for the most part, and automatically rarely thinking aboutwhy they are doing it.

They enter, what is most often the smallest room in their dwelling, a room usually austere with hard clinical feastures; they then squeeze a paste from a tube onto a brush, and putting that in their mouth they brush their teeth. The ritual often is concluded with a green or blue liquid and a gargle.

The efficacy of the ritual is supposedly based on science, yet not one of them (oh maybe a handful worldwide), have every seen evidence that such a ritual is useful. EVen if you ask a dentist, they will tell you all the benefits of the ritual, yet they have only been told of the benefits at school.

This ritual is one of the greatest marketing successes of the 20thC, and was relatively unknown in previous centruries, yet for the practicioners it is wholly based on faith.

It is highly fetishised too. Some insist of certain types of toothpaste, others insist on bruch type hardness, electric or not, Braun or Philips. Mouthwashes are also highly fetishised, and there is very little evidence that they provide ANY additional purpose.

A taveller from another planet might think this is some sort of religion and was related to the fact that humans seem to do something very strange within the two practices of this ritual; namely that they lie down and go unconscious for circa 7-8 hours each darkness cycle.

[Age]

YET...

I'm utterly uninterested in you, Age. I have yet to see one post from you that shows any grasp at all of anything relevant to any topic.

Surprise me, one day.

That day is clearly not today.

So, 'your' CONDESCENDING and SUPERIORITY COMPLEX "immanuel can" has NOT diminished AT ALL, I SEE here.

I just POINTED OUT an IRREFUTABLE Fact in regards to EXACTLY what 'you' were SAYING and CLAIMING just here now, BUT 'you' STILL could NOT SEE HOW this post and response of mine RELATED TO 'your' CLAIM.

'This' SHOWS and PROVES just how ABSOLUTELY BLIND, and DEAF, some of 'these people' REALLY WERE, BACK THEN.

[Iwannaplato]

As quoted in this post;

OK, thanks for the quotes! I've read other works of Polyani, not that one. Interesting. I'll have to read that one, partly because it's a bit hard to know what he means by faith there and also God - "which is revealed to us in man and society"
And then partly because it was wonderful reading his take on tacit knowledge, especially given that he is a scientist. Or was.

[Immanuel Can]

If your declaration is presented as an objective truth, then it's falsified your claim that truth is mind-dependent: it will be always and universally true, whether your mind knows it or not.
But if you're offering at as merely mind-dependent, your own feeling or subjective view, then my mind and the minds of others do have any reason to accept what you believe.

Either your argument self-defeats, as in the first case, or it fails to matter, as in the second.
Pick your way to fail, I guess.

Let me present some basic re 'mind-independence' [re Polanyi] to avoid talking pass each other

We're going to do that anyway, since you don't read what I write, it seems. But I've said what I have to say about that, so I'll leave it with you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As quoted in this post;

OK, thanks for the quotes! I've read other works of Polyani, not that one. Interesting. I'll have to read that one, partly because it's a bit hard to know what he means by faith there and also God - "which is revealed to us in man and society"
And then partly because it was wonderful reading his take on tacit knowledge, especially given that he is a scientist. Or was.

In that book, Polanyi did not delve much into God and faith technically.
Basically the whole book is about Polanyi kicking the ass of those who adopt scientific realism grounded on philosophical realism's mind independence.
Polanyi's critique the arrogance of scientific realism in discovering 'truth' of reality but are ignorance they are merely relying on faith just like the theists are doing with the God & reality.

So IC is correct to rely on Polanyi's claim that science is based on faith based on scientific realism grounded on philosophical realism.

But Polanyi's critique of science has no impact in Science based on anti-scientific_realism grounded on anti-philosophical_realism as conditioned upon the human based scientific FSR-FSK.

Actually Polanyi in his book is describing the Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge Science and all the necessary conditions [including the weaknesses] therein which is human-based.

Despite Polanyi's explanation of the limitations [via human conditions] of the scientific FSK and process, what other FSKs are more credible than the scientific FSK in its enabling the emergence and realization of reality before it is perceived, known, and described?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Let me present some basic re 'mind-independence' [re Polanyi] to avoid talking pass each other

We're going to do that anyway, since you don't read what I write, it seems. But I've said what I have to say about that, so I'll leave it with you.

Note my point in the above post.

In a way, you and Polanyi are correct that in one sense,
Science is Based on [serious] Faith like Theism?
BUT ... ...
that is not applicable to anti-scientific_realism grounded on anti_philosophical_realism.

I suggest you qualify when you make claim "Science is Based on Faith like Theism?"

[Age]

All of science is expected to be expressible mathematically. All of mathematics is rooted in axioms. Axioms are "self-evident". "Self-evident" is a deference to intuition outside of logic. Intuition is non-logical form of reasoning. God is sometimes said to be "self-evident" which is also a deference to intuition outside of logic. So to the degree that intuition is also faith, science is faith-based like theism. Furthermore, the degree to which God can be expressible mathematically, God is an entity of science.

Is 'this' an actual fact, or just what you think or believe is true?

[rootseeker]

All of science is expected to be expressible mathematically. All of mathematics is rooted in axioms. Axioms are "self-evident". "Self-evident" is a deference to intuition outside of logic. Intuition is non-logical form of reasoning. God is sometimes said to be "self-evident" which is also a deference to intuition outside of logic. So to the degree that intuition is also faith, science is faith-based like theism. Furthermore, the degree to which God can be expressible mathematically, God is an entity of science.

Is 'this' an actual fact, or just what you think or believe is true?

This is a fact to the degree that dictionary definitions of the terms used are facts, rather than just what I think is true. I'd categorize them more as assertions rather than facts. Each of these statements could be placed on a fact to opinion scale. All of mathematics being rooted in axioms is the closest statement to being a fact, while science being expressible with math is closest to being an opinion (what I think or believe is true).