I came here for a heartwarming tale about turtles sliding down a waterslide.
And yet, I do not walk away disappointed. There's definitely a gap between how many of us perceive science and scientists (as the ultimate truth bringers) vs. how the scientific method works in most cases (observing, making and testing hypotheses, and continuously updating your worldview based on the best available data and explanation).
Now I'm off to start building that turtle waterslide.
I'm so glad you said this part: "Statements of faith, also known as first principles, axioms, and assumptions, are critical enablers in our complex world as long as you recognize and accept it is a statement of faith and prevent it from being ossified into a religious tenant vs. a dynamic tool we can use to foster innovation."
Science doesn't say to believe in axioms no matter what, nor take as an act of faith that the big bang happened, but popular culture certainly makes it seem as though it does... and most people who are casual observers of science are virtually certain to conclude that science is a field where people claim to "know things for sure."
Every professional scientist I've known has been the exact opposite of this, constantly questioning everything we "know."
If anything, skepticism is the default setting... even about axioms.
Science does get very dogmatic and they refuse the see their statements of faith for what they are and start treating them as statements of truth, never to be questioned. I like how you challenge that very clearly.
Infinity has always attracted me - like standing in the middle of opposing mirrors and conceptualizing what it would mean. I'm so glad I stumbled upon your platform. I wrote a post using the Sturgill Simpson "Turtles All the Way Down" song as a musical backbone. I'd be honored if you checked out this post.
Your discussion of apathy reminded me of this old story
1991 Frank Layden, Utah Jazz president, on a former player: "I told him, 'Son, what is it with you. Is it ignorance or apathy?' He said, "Coach, I don't know and I don't care.'"
This is a tricky subject but very important. Thanks for bringing it up. Regardless of what words you use, people are provoked by conversations like this but a little healthy poking and provocation is necessary at times, especially if your intentions are good and are only looking to help. The word “scientism” is another word to describe some of this dynamic and I have noticed people react to that word too. It may sound boring 🥱 but I like the simple word “uncertainty” as getting comfortable with what we know with certainty and what we do not know with certainty changes the possibilities. Making the impossible possible can only happen by first acknowledging the reality of uncertainty, to feel comfortable asking difficult questions about our current theories, thoughts and beliefs. Perhaps we need more chaos theory and less complexity science, as sometimes it feels like to me complexity science is turning more institutionalized. At the beginning it seemed like more chaos theory and outliers self organizing, people thinking and behaving in interdisciplinary ways (in a way that threatened the status quo). What is it about our current institutional organization that seems to lessen the chances of breakthrough innovation and creative possibilities?
As a general principle, if you cannot explain what you mean without using a specific meaning laden word, and "faith" features high up on that particular list, then you probably don't understand what you are trying to say.
So here's a plea to discourage use of the word "Faith" in any description of science. We don't need to use it and, because of its long history at the centre of religious ideology, it comes steeped in connotations that simply do not apply to science.
Science is an intellectual process that proceeds from Conjecture to Hypothesis to Theory. The trajectory along that pathway to the truth is fuelled by the collection and authentication of evidence. Faith, by reputation, infers belief without evidence irrespective of how outrageous that belief may seem when viewed from a scientific perspective.
Science now has many well substantiated and very useful theories: Gravity, Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Electromagnetism, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Biology, Germ theory and Evolution etc.. Taken together, these theories form a magnificent body of Reliable Public Knowledge that delivers extraordinary levels of Explanatory Power and they do so without any implication of being true all the way down to the bottom turtle.
If there is a need to identify a single word from that to replace the misuse of "faith" in connection with science then "Reliable" is an obvious contender that is easier to say than "Explanatory".
As for meaningful connotations, consider air travel. Few passengers would dare to board an aircraft if that industry didn't have a reputation for reliability and that the magic of flight wasn't widely understood to be down to wings, engines, pressurized cabins and advanced navigation systems as opposed to a wish and a prayer for a miracle. Once on board, passengers are reminded that reliability cannot be taken to mean absolute certainty by being told about oxygen masks and lifejackets.
Science doesn't do bottom line certainty. It does reliability and explanatory power.
The term "faith" has long been the de facto property of religion. We should honour that fact and refrain from using the term in any discussion of our magnificent and "reliable" scientific "explanations" of our world.
I came here for a heartwarming tale about turtles sliding down a waterslide.
And yet, I do not walk away disappointed. There's definitely a gap between how many of us perceive science and scientists (as the ultimate truth bringers) vs. how the scientific method works in most cases (observing, making and testing hypotheses, and continuously updating your worldview based on the best available data and explanation).
Now I'm off to start building that turtle waterslide.
I'm so glad you said this part: "Statements of faith, also known as first principles, axioms, and assumptions, are critical enablers in our complex world as long as you recognize and accept it is a statement of faith and prevent it from being ossified into a religious tenant vs. a dynamic tool we can use to foster innovation."
Science doesn't say to believe in axioms no matter what, nor take as an act of faith that the big bang happened, but popular culture certainly makes it seem as though it does... and most people who are casual observers of science are virtually certain to conclude that science is a field where people claim to "know things for sure."
Every professional scientist I've known has been the exact opposite of this, constantly questioning everything we "know."
If anything, skepticism is the default setting... even about axioms.
Science does get very dogmatic and they refuse the see their statements of faith for what they are and start treating them as statements of truth, never to be questioned. I like how you challenge that very clearly.
Infinity has always attracted me - like standing in the middle of opposing mirrors and conceptualizing what it would mean. I'm so glad I stumbled upon your platform. I wrote a post using the Sturgill Simpson "Turtles All the Way Down" song as a musical backbone. I'd be honored if you checked out this post.
https://riclexel.substack.com/p/1st-take2nd-look-2
Your discussion of apathy reminded me of this old story
1991 Frank Layden, Utah Jazz president, on a former player: "I told him, 'Son, what is it with you. Is it ignorance or apathy?' He said, "Coach, I don't know and I don't care.'"
Keep writing - I'll keep reading
This is a tricky subject but very important. Thanks for bringing it up. Regardless of what words you use, people are provoked by conversations like this but a little healthy poking and provocation is necessary at times, especially if your intentions are good and are only looking to help. The word “scientism” is another word to describe some of this dynamic and I have noticed people react to that word too. It may sound boring 🥱 but I like the simple word “uncertainty” as getting comfortable with what we know with certainty and what we do not know with certainty changes the possibilities. Making the impossible possible can only happen by first acknowledging the reality of uncertainty, to feel comfortable asking difficult questions about our current theories, thoughts and beliefs. Perhaps we need more chaos theory and less complexity science, as sometimes it feels like to me complexity science is turning more institutionalized. At the beginning it seemed like more chaos theory and outliers self organizing, people thinking and behaving in interdisciplinary ways (in a way that threatened the status quo). What is it about our current institutional organization that seems to lessen the chances of breakthrough innovation and creative possibilities?
As a general principle, if you cannot explain what you mean without using a specific meaning laden word, and "faith" features high up on that particular list, then you probably don't understand what you are trying to say.
So here's a plea to discourage use of the word "Faith" in any description of science. We don't need to use it and, because of its long history at the centre of religious ideology, it comes steeped in connotations that simply do not apply to science.
Science is an intellectual process that proceeds from Conjecture to Hypothesis to Theory. The trajectory along that pathway to the truth is fuelled by the collection and authentication of evidence. Faith, by reputation, infers belief without evidence irrespective of how outrageous that belief may seem when viewed from a scientific perspective.
Science now has many well substantiated and very useful theories: Gravity, Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Electromagnetism, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Biology, Germ theory and Evolution etc.. Taken together, these theories form a magnificent body of Reliable Public Knowledge that delivers extraordinary levels of Explanatory Power and they do so without any implication of being true all the way down to the bottom turtle.
If there is a need to identify a single word from that to replace the misuse of "faith" in connection with science then "Reliable" is an obvious contender that is easier to say than "Explanatory".
As for meaningful connotations, consider air travel. Few passengers would dare to board an aircraft if that industry didn't have a reputation for reliability and that the magic of flight wasn't widely understood to be down to wings, engines, pressurized cabins and advanced navigation systems as opposed to a wish and a prayer for a miracle. Once on board, passengers are reminded that reliability cannot be taken to mean absolute certainty by being told about oxygen masks and lifejackets.
Science doesn't do bottom line certainty. It does reliability and explanatory power.
The term "faith" has long been the de facto property of religion. We should honour that fact and refrain from using the term in any discussion of our magnificent and "reliable" scientific "explanations" of our world.