From: ben (ben@machinegod.org)
Date: Sat Jun 08 2002 - 12:00:37 MDT
[quote author=Jake Sapiens link=board=51;threadid=25551;start=0#109484
date=1023472824]
[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 1] 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.
[Hermit] Jake has it dead to rights. Refer the lexicon excerpt below for
some useful definitions. [snip]
[ben 2] Alright alright I'm crawling back to the lurk-cave... good points
both of you. Thanks for reminding me of a distiction I seem to forget
regularly.
-ben
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:47 MDT