On the basis of scientific realism as grounded on philosophical realism [mind-independence] is to correct that scientific realism do rely on faith.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 12:31 am Actually, it is. Would you say that a scientist had no "faith" in his procedures and tests?
My faith, like theirs is premised on evidence. But I think my evidence is a good deal better than what they usually have to go on, when they set out to design a truly new experiment. After all, when they set out on that, they've seen nothing; the test has never been run, and they have only hypotheses drawn from whatever similar cases they may perceive on which to go. But of the actual experiment, they have zero data.
That's a lot of faith for a person to have, I'd say.
Thus scientific realists who are philosophical realist has no defense that their science is based on faith just a theism is based on faith.
However anti-scientific_realism which is based on anti-philosophical_realism is not based on faith like those of the p-realists and theists.
See detailed argument here;
Scientific Realism [faith-based] vs Scientific Anti-Realism
viewtopic.php?p=658796#p658796
Here is a comment from ChatGPT [with reservations] in relation to the why anti-scientific realism is not based on faith.
Scientists do rely on faith to some insignificant degrees but this is polished off during the process of intersubjective consensus within the scientific framework.To convince theists that science [in-general] is not based on faith, it's important to highlight the fundamental differences between the scientific method and faith-based beliefs. Here are some key points to consider when engaging in this discussion:
Empirical evidence: Science is based on empirical evidence gathered through systematic observation and experimentation. The scientific method involves making hypotheses, testing them, and analyzing the results to draw conclusions. This reliance on evidence sets it apart from faith, which is often based on belief without tangible evidence.
Falsifiability: Scientific theories and hypotheses are formulated in a way that allows them to be falsified or proven wrong. This means that they are open to scrutiny and can be modified or discarded if evidence contradicts them. On the other hand, faith-based beliefs often rely on claims that are immune to falsification, making them more resistant to questioning and revision.
Predictive power: The success of science lies in its ability to make accurate predictions about the natural world based on well-supported theories. These predictions can be tested and verified by others independently. Faith, on the other hand, typically does not offer such predictive power as it deals with matters beyond empirical investigation.
Consistency and coherence: Scientific knowledge is interconnected and forms a coherent framework. Each scientific discovery builds upon previous ones and must be consistent with existing knowledge. Faith-based beliefs often lack this consistency, as they can vary significantly between individuals and religious traditions.
Peer review and skepticism: Science encourages peer review and skepticism, where research and findings are critically evaluated by experts in the field. This helps to reduce bias and ensure the validity of scientific claims. Faith, on the other hand, often discourages questioning or doubting core beliefs.
Provisional nature: Scientific understanding is provisional, meaning that new evidence or observations can lead to modifications or even complete revisions of existing theories. This adaptability distinguishes it from faith-based beliefs that are typically treated as immutable and eternal.
Universal application: Scientific principles apply consistently across different cultures, beliefs, and worldviews. The scientific method is a universal approach to understanding the natural world, irrespective of one's religious or non-religious beliefs.
Your claim that theism [God exists] is based on evidence is very misleading with intent to be deceptive. Theism is grounded on an illusion via Philosophical Realism.
When science proves that X exists it is based on direct empirical evidence X as verified and justified within a human-based scientific Framework.
When science speculates based on existing empirical evidences, it will qualify such speculations with various degrees of uncertainty, e.g. Big Bang Theory and the likes.
When theism insists God exists as absolutely real [without qualifications], it does not rely on the direct evidence of an empirical God as science does.
Rather theists make a intelligible leap to an intelligible entity [supersensible] that has no empirical possibility to be verified and justified empirically as real within a credible Framework and System of Knowledge.
- It is impossible, Kant argues, to extend knowledge to the supersensible realm of speculative metaphysics. The reason that knowledge has these constraints, Kant argues, is that the mind plays an active role in constituting the features of experience and limiting the mind’s access only to the empirical realm of space and time.
https://iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/
viewtopic.php?t=40229
......
ETA: with reservations
