After reading a post about faith and science on Bad Astronomy, I feel compelled to respond to Phil Plait and point out a few glaring flaws in his argument. In my Theory of Knowledge class, we discussed this same topic. I would like to first state that I am not a religious person. I find scientific explanation more convincing, but acknowledge the fact that it is still fundamentally based on faith.

Plait begins his argument with a quote from an article by Peter Galling on Answers In Genesis and promptly shoots it down. Galling says:

Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths. This starting point, whatever it is, can only be accepted by faith; eventually, in each belief system, there must be some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning (since an infinite regression is impossible).

Plait says “This is completely wrong” but follows up by saying:

The scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules. That’s it. There is one corollary, and that is that if the Universe follows these rules, then those rules can be deduced by observing the way Universe behaves. This follows naturally; if it obeys the rules, then the rules must be revealed by that behavior.

Does anyone else see the contradiction in his argument? Is that not what Galling is trying to say? In science, the “unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning” is the assumption that the universe is governed by reliable, universal laws.

Plait attempts backup his point by giving a misconstrued example of objects orbiting the sun. He also says that the things we use everyday like cars, light bulbs, and iPods are products of scientific research, which is true. However, he misses the point completely.

We can develop mathematical equations based on observations to predict the locations of orbiting objects with phenomenal accuracy, but this does little to support Plait’s argument. Indeed it supports that the universe follows a set of rules, but where did these rules come from? Who created them? In an article in the New York Times, Paul Davies eloquently writes:

The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.

Galling was right. In every belief system, there is an unprovable axiom. Plait’s argument seems to be more suited to argue that scientific theories are based on empirical evidence and that theories are revised when more evidence is discovered. Plait concludes his article with:

To say that we have to take science on faith is such a gross misunderstanding of how science works that it can only be uttered by someone who is wholly ignorant of how reality works.

And he says to point anyone who asserts that science is faith based to his article. However, I find myself actually less inclined to do so. I would rather direct them to Davies’ article instead, for his argument that science’s “claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus” is far more compelling.

Digg it.

This was posted on February 18, 2008. It’s a prose on faith, response, and Science. CommentsHope you like it.