Garrison Hilliard
2016-03-11 15:27:45 UTC
Faith, by definition, is the belief in something despite insufficient
knowledge to be certain of its veracity. Some beliefs require small
leaps of faith (the example that the Sun will rise tomorrow), as the
body of evidence supporting that prediction is overwhelming, while
others the existence of dark matter, the inflationary origin of our
Universe, or the possibility of room-temperature superconductivity
may still be likely, but may also reasonably turn out to be
wrongheaded. Yet in every case, there are two key components that make
the prediction scientific:
The prediction, or the belief that the outcome can be accurately
predicted, is predicated on the existence of quality evidence.
As the evidence changes as we obtain more, newer and better evidence
and as the full suite of evidence expands, our predictions,
postdictions and entire conceptions of the Universe change along with
it.
There is no such thing as a good scientist who isnt willing to both
base their scientific belief on the full suite of evidence available,
nor is there such a thing as a good scientist who wont revise their
beliefs in the face of new evidence.
Image credit: public domain / US Government, of a schematic of how
LIGO works. Modifications made by Krzysztof Zajaczkowski.
Image credit: public domain / US Government, of a schematic of how
LIGO works. Modifications made by Krzysztof Zajaczkowski.
We may have had faith that Einsteins predictions, and the existence
of gravitational waves, would turn out to be correct, and that LIGO
would make the greatest scientific discovery of the 21st century so
far. But if it hadnt been true if advanced LIGO had reached design
sensitivity and seen nothing for years, or if it had seen something
that conflicted with Einsteins theory that faith would be
instantaneously discarded, and replaced by something even better: a
quest to discover how to extend and supersede Einsteins greatest
accomplishment to account for the new evidence.
Image credit: NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, of an illustration of
the expanding Universe.
Image credit: NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, of an illustration of
the expanding Universe.
The fundamental question is neither what the object of humanitys
faith will be nor how far it will extend, but rather how far youre
willing-and-able to test your most deeply held beliefs, and whether
youll have the courage to change your conclusions to follow where the
evidence guides. That is what separates science from anything
faith-based, and why any faith-based belief system will never be
considered scientific.
Gallery
2016 30 Under 30: Science
Launch Gallery
31 images
Astrophysicist and author Ethan Siegel is the founder and primary
writer of Starts With A Bang. Follow him on Twitter, Facebook, G+,
Tumblr, and order his book: Beyond The Galaxy, today!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/03/08/science-is-not-faith-based-no-matter-what-the-wall-street-journal-says/#464828556055
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
knowledge to be certain of its veracity. Some beliefs require small
leaps of faith (the example that the Sun will rise tomorrow), as the
body of evidence supporting that prediction is overwhelming, while
others the existence of dark matter, the inflationary origin of our
Universe, or the possibility of room-temperature superconductivity
may still be likely, but may also reasonably turn out to be
wrongheaded. Yet in every case, there are two key components that make
the prediction scientific:
The prediction, or the belief that the outcome can be accurately
predicted, is predicated on the existence of quality evidence.
As the evidence changes as we obtain more, newer and better evidence
and as the full suite of evidence expands, our predictions,
postdictions and entire conceptions of the Universe change along with
it.
There is no such thing as a good scientist who isnt willing to both
base their scientific belief on the full suite of evidence available,
nor is there such a thing as a good scientist who wont revise their
beliefs in the face of new evidence.
Image credit: public domain / US Government, of a schematic of how
LIGO works. Modifications made by Krzysztof Zajaczkowski.
Image credit: public domain / US Government, of a schematic of how
LIGO works. Modifications made by Krzysztof Zajaczkowski.
We may have had faith that Einsteins predictions, and the existence
of gravitational waves, would turn out to be correct, and that LIGO
would make the greatest scientific discovery of the 21st century so
far. But if it hadnt been true if advanced LIGO had reached design
sensitivity and seen nothing for years, or if it had seen something
that conflicted with Einsteins theory that faith would be
instantaneously discarded, and replaced by something even better: a
quest to discover how to extend and supersede Einsteins greatest
accomplishment to account for the new evidence.
Image credit: NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, of an illustration of
the expanding Universe.
Image credit: NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, of an illustration of
the expanding Universe.
The fundamental question is neither what the object of humanitys
faith will be nor how far it will extend, but rather how far youre
willing-and-able to test your most deeply held beliefs, and whether
youll have the courage to change your conclusions to follow where the
evidence guides. That is what separates science from anything
faith-based, and why any faith-based belief system will never be
considered scientific.
Gallery
2016 30 Under 30: Science
Launch Gallery
31 images
Astrophysicist and author Ethan Siegel is the founder and primary
writer of Starts With A Bang. Follow him on Twitter, Facebook, G+,
Tumblr, and order his book: Beyond The Galaxy, today!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/03/08/science-is-not-faith-based-no-matter-what-the-wall-street-journal-says/#464828556055
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---