Let’s chat about… No, Science Is Not Faith-Based

In an article appearing in Forbes Science on March 8th. 2016, entitled, “No, Science Is Not Faith-Based“, physicist Ethan Siegel lays out his argument to show how science is not faith-based. He speaks of “faith” as a belief in something despite sufficient evidence making it certain.  So what makes something scientific?

Siegel explains that something can be accurately predicted based on evidence (I suppose this means experimental data). He also adds that there is flexibility in the process; that if evidence points to something as incorrect, then the concepts of what was understood to be true must change to reflect the new paradigm. So scientist must be willing to change their belief if new data is presented to support it.

In conclusion, Siegel states, “The fundamental question is neither what the object of humanity’s faith will be nor how far it will extend, but rather how far you’re willing-and-able to test your most deeply held beliefs, and whether you’ll 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.”

If Siegel (and the academic community) are to practice what Ethan is preaching, then Gordon’s theory of everything is about to give the ultimate test to physicists.  It will determine whether physicists are actually scientists or just “faithful” to their own beliefs.  Gordon theory of everything lays out a single comprehensive model that creates all the laws of physics, all the parameters used in physics, and everything in the universe without introducing anything more than its two primordial postulates.  The inevitable course of events creating our universe is predicted by a derivative mathematical progression.

This test is upon physicists now. Will physicists ever consider a theory based on spacetime as a medium? Over 100 years ago physicists had definitively “proven” that spacetime is not a medium. WIll physicists have the courage to change their conclusions? To make matters even worse, Gordon’s building block component (the GOD entity aka the Gordon Omnipresent Dot) that forms the spacetime medium can never be experimentally observed.  That is because the GOD entity is literally and physically impossible to experimentally find because doing so would break the laws of physics.  How ironic Siegel’s statement becomes…   In order for physicists to accept the theory of everything, they have to have faith in the GOD entity, which is something that can never be experimentally verified!

So Ethan, in your own words…   How far are you willing-and-able to test your most deeply held beliefs (spacetime is not a medium), and whether you’ll have the courage to change your conclusions to follow Gordon’s mathematical progression providing new evidence. Afterall Ethan,…    this “is what separates science from faith-based beliefs, and why any faith-based belief system will never be considered scientific.”

What a dilemma?  Not to change current physics theory would make science a faith-based belief and yet changing the scientific belief to include the GOD entity would mean that scientists would have to believe in something that can never be found.

…I have to admit, watching the physicists coming to grips with this unsatisfying reality will bring a very satisfying smile to my face.  🙂