From: Jkr438@aol.com
Date: Fri Jun 07 2002 - 12:00:24 MDT
[Hermit] Certainly, if you had bothered to peruse the previously supplied
synopsis, you would have discovered that "faith" is not required or helpful
in science (if you choose to disagree, please indicate at which step in the
process "faith" is required)
[ben] At some point in the scientific process, 'faith' is certainly
required. We must have faith in our observations and in our instruments. You
can trace the chain all the way back if you must, but as some point you have
to give up and say 'I believe my observations to be correct because I have
faith in (insert program/scope/meter/etc - or even 'my own 5 senses')
[Jake] I would suggest that you have switched into a usage of "faith" that
really is synonymous with "confidence." Indeed this word would seem better
as it does not carry the stronger religious implications of the word "faith."
In religious terms faith is generally not dependent on evidence, repeatable
experiences, etc. Confidence on the other hand is generally justified by
such things.
-Jake
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:47 MDT