Does science require faith?

There was a recent post at the heterodox stem substack, arguing that science requires faith. My thanks to Jerry Coyne for the reference. Coyne has already expressed his disagreement with that viewpoint. In this post, I’ll add my own disagreement.

In elementary school, after we learned to use fractions we were taught to use 22/7 for the value of . We did not actually use the symbol at that stage. We were not given any reason for using 22/7. We had to trust the teacher for that. This was for doing what we called “mensuration” problems — finding areas and perimeters. So, yes, you could think of that as a kind of faith. A child needs to trust teachers and parents while growing up.

The next year, we learned decimal fractions. And we began to use 3.14 or 3.1416 for . I quickly worked out that this was not the same as 22/7, so by then I understood that these were approximations.

In high school, we studied physics every year. One of our first physics experiments was to find the value of . We were given wooden cylinders, and wrapped a thread around the cylinder as a way of measuring the perimeter. And we directly measured the diameter. At first this seemed strange. I had done enough reading to know that the value of was usually found mathematically (with an infinite series), so the physics experiment seemed bogus. But then I realized the point being made. We did not need to depend on faith. We could find these things out by ourselves. And that’s what is distinctive about science.

The argument

Let’s look at the argument given in the referenced substack post.

Some believe that science is a superior alternative to faith. But if we peer a little deeper, we see that the scientific method actually requires a great deal of faith before it can even get off the ground. For example, here are five axioms that every scientist (often unconsciously) believes:

The author then goes on to list 5 items that he takes to be matters of required faith for science. I disagree with all of them.

• The entire physical universe obeys certain laws and these laws do not change with time.

This is a common misunderstanding of science. We often describe science as if the universe is following laws. But the universe is not checking our laws to see how to behave. The laws are human constructs. It is really the scientist who is following the laws. The scientist sees an object that is accelerating, so the scientist then ascribes a force to explain that acceleration. The universe is not doing anything beyond behaving as it normally does.

• Our observations provide accurate information about reality.

This is a misunderstanding. Yes, we want our observations to be accurate. But this accuracy takes hard work by the scientist. It is not axiomatic and it is not guaranteed. We must be careful in how we do our observations.

• The laws of logic yield truth.

This is wrong. If false premises are used in a logic argument, the conclusion may well be false. The correct statement should be that logic preserves truth.

• The human mind recognizes the laws of logic and can apply them correctly.

I have taught mathematics and computer science for many years, and it is my experience that many students have difficulty with logic.

• Truth ought to be pursued.

Why ought truth be pursued? Boyle’s law is false and known to be false. It is a good approximation, and it works very well. Should we then throw it out as false? Similarly, heliocentrism is false, but works very well. Should we throw it out as false?

Science is a pragmatic venture, rather than a truth seeking one.

Summary

No, science does not depend on faith. The idea that it does is just a false claim that religious apologists repeatedly use.

I do not criticize people for their faith. But they need to be honest about recognizing that science is different.

Is science a superior alternative to faith? I do not make that claim. What counts as superior depends on what you are evaluating and why. Science does not answer every question that we have. But it appears to be the best way of understanding our natural world.