A reasonable and well-tempered post....
....but I don't believe that it hits the mark.
If I can presume to speak for koshergrl and the OP, it seems to me that it is geared toward those who use 'science' and 'scientists' as some sort of cudgel against religious folk, and theology.
The point is, as you suggest, scientists are merely people. Further, science itself uses faith and belief at its hightest levels to advance theories and hypotheses.
I've yet to see an actual explanation or reasoning for this, besides stretching the definition of faith to mean several words it does not.
Ah yes, you chose one of the most speculative parts of theoretical physics and apply it to all of science. It's hardly representative of theoretical physics, let alone the rest of science. So his point, and you're larger point about science being built on the same belief as religion falls flat.
Why is the greatness attributed to science undeserved? No one views their findings as being set in stone, any scientist or even a mere look into the history of science will show you that.
Most of us who are religious are not offended by those who are not...but there are those on the other side who never miss an opportunity to insult the community of faith.
Such generalized statements are retarded. It is very easily just as true that religious people never miss an opportunity to insult atheists and/or science.
As you plead for same, I'd be remiss in failing to educate you....
The premise here is that at the highest levels, science is based on the same kind of faith and belief as religion.
It's based on the scientific method and empircal evidence really.
1
. The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions, which mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles.
Standard Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. By the 1960s, physicists understood that there were four forces that dominate the material world:
a. the force of gravitation
b. the electromagnetic force
c. and d. the weak and strong nuclear forces.
In addition, there were a large number of elementary particles. The Standard Model was
considered to partially explain the forces, and, therefore partially unified the concepts of physics.
3. The model is comprised of three parts:
a.
Quantum electodynamics, a successful quantum theory of the electromagnetic field, one with satisfying principles of both quantum mechanics and special relativity.
b. The
electroweak theory of Abdus Salam, Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg, posited if the universe is hot enough (approximately 1015 K, a temperature exceeded until shortly after the Big Bang) then the electromagnetic force and weak force will merge into a combined electroweak force.
Electroweak interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of course, today,
there is very little of said unity, and the two forces are distinct. The
proof has to be imagined at a time far distant, and, today, nothing more than a form of broken symmetry. The massless particles should have long range effects, but these
effects are not seen in experiments. The idea was set aside until 1960, when the concept of particles acquiring mass through symmetry breaking in massless theories was put forward, initially by Jeffrey Goldstone, Yoichiro Nambu, and Giovanni Jona-Lasinio.
Yang
c. Finally,
quantum chromodynamics, a theory of the strong nuclear force. In the theory, Yang and Mills outlined a new physical theory, and predicted particles that no experiments had revealed, and strange new symmetries. Interactions grew stronger as the distance between the particles increased.
Still with me, old timer?
4. Now, here come the problems, and how 'science' accomodates them:
a. The Standard Model
cannot explain the transition from the elementary particles to states of matter in which the elementary particles are bound to one another and form complex structures.
b. Further, the Standard Model is arbitrary in that it contains many
numerical parameters- at least twenty-one, designating specific numerical properties of the model such that they cannot be derived from theory.
c. Above all, the Standard Model
does not incorporate the force of gravity. General relativity stands apart, unreconciled. While general relativity suggests an orderly and predictable universe at the large level (Einstein was known to say God does not play dice) it is
unable to explain the unpredictable subatomic environment that quantum physics so accurately describes. Conversely quantum mechanics has trouble explaining the mechanics behind large objects.
Unifying General Relativity and the Standard Model | The Faith of a Heretic
The above, from Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion," chapter six.[/quote]
Oh, from you're new favorite book of the week. So, where does the faith equivalent to religious faith come in?
Now, does one abandon the above codified discipline based on the flaws, lacunae, inability to prove outside of mathematical hyperbole and fabrication?
Oh, it's because it's not perfect, therefore for all its flaws scientists must have great faith in the model to describe everything? They still have faith, even though they try to find solutions to the gaps in our knowledge?
Except here's the problem, you don't understand why they aren't dropping it. You think it's because they have religious faith in it. If there was a superior theory out there to explain it, scientists would pick it up pretty handily. They don't drop the standard model right now because the standard model still has it's valid parts. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, when you still can learn things from the bathwater. Another reason is many of the issues surrounding the standard model concern things we don't have a significant knowledge on like dark matter or the existence of the Higgs Boson.
Well, no...not if the above is based on fervent and deeply held conviction....
....also known as faith.
Now, I challenge you to use string theory as a defense.
Why? There's really no reason here, this isn't a debate of science, more so what faith can be construed in in science, and why certain theories are still held as valid despite all their flaws.
A much more better challenge to you would be to try and show me where faith is in the rest of science, and not where it is in the frontiers of physics.
