Science Is Faith-Based

As a person to whom supernatural faith is anathema, and for whom science is both a comfort and a shield against faith-based dogma, I am not happy to admit that the title of this post is in fact true. But in order to remain consistent with my own proselytizing of reason and logic, I am forced to do so. Here’s why:

Science is based on our observation of the Universe; observation relies on the senses. The veracity of the senses cannot be tested without invoking the senses (a logical fallacy); thus, even empirical data is inherently suspect.

Suppose I see a UFO flying overhead: how can I confirm that it is real? I observed it with my eyes, but how can I be sure that they are trustworthy? I can ask someone else if they see the UFO, and they can agree that it is real, but that doesn’t prove anything because the trustworthiness of their eyes has not been confirmed. My eyes cannot be invoked to corroborate theirs, because the trustworthiness of mine remains in question. We can get a third person to corroborate the second, and so on, but we will eventually run out of people, having proven nothing about the reality of the UFO.

Thus, acceptance of empirical data, and the science that depends on it, requires a leap of faith that what is observed is real — not just according to the senses, but irrespective of them — which cannot be proven conclusively.

Note to Vegetarians

The argument for vegetarianism on ethical grounds is a logical fallacy, because it pretends that there are no instances where one could consume an animal without killing it (or having it killed). This is clearly false: one could consume an animal which has died of natural causes, for example. Note that some vegetarians employ similar scenarios to justify their use of animal products (e.g., leather shoes), and rightly so.

Instead of arguing for vegetarianism on ethical grounds, vegetarians should instead be arguing against the killing of animals on ethical grounds. This may provide them with less opportunity to evangelize their dietary choices, although it need not, if they can work vegetarianism into the conversation in a non-fallacious manner (i.e., if they simply present vegetarianism as one option in a grab-bag of assorted lifestyle choices which might reduce human impact on other species).

In short: vegetarianism precludes the eating of meat; an ethical stance against the killing of animals does not.