Proven equally well by the fact that Nation can use a computer but also believes in a beardy sky pixie.
Explained at a middle school level, perhaps. Not understood.
Independently read? That’s not verification.
Anyway, the point is that you haven’t “independently read” or verified lots of things you do believe are true, even if you have verified some.
Why don’t you say that again, a little louder this time; I think they are some people who didn’t hear you the first time.
I’d say accepting scientific conclusions you haven’t verified yourself is more a matter of trust than of faith. When you read a paper with a theorem, you often don’t spend the time to really go through the proof unless you’re a reviewer or the conclusion seems iffy. You trust that it has been done correctly. The difference between trust and faith is that the path to verification is always well marked and open in science. In matters of religion, you hit the “it’s a miracle” or “you have to believe” point.
When this happens in science, from the data not being in yet, the proposition is clearly marked as a hypothesis, not theory, and it is provisionally accepted at best. That’s where you get the arguments.
We trust that quantum mechanics works thanks to evidence that our computers work, and we trust in our airplane out of evidence that it gets off the ground. No faith involved at all.
A classic example of a mind so open that the brains have fallen out. That you’re too stupid to understand the logic of science says nothing about science, and only says things about you.
I’m not a physicist, but I do know that the transistors in our newest nanometer process chips are designed using the principles of quantum physics - and they work. Do you think they get designed by guesswork?
Ummm, I believe because I have faith God is real. I don’t expect anyone else to have faith though, and you can’t explain or understand faith until, or unless, you have it. And I don’t condemn anyone for not having faith, that’s not my business.
:pFlame away, I can take it my god will protect me:D
What’s the difference between a matter of trust and a matter of faith? None at all. The difference, as you point out, is that one set of claims can be audited. Unless you do audit them, though, you’re not necessarily any less gullible than somebody who believes that his computer works because g/God waved his hand and made it work.
Remember, there are people who accept scientific claims without auditing them properly, or at all, and paid for it- Ponds and Fleishman’s investors, or Arthur Woodward.
Faith is belief without evidence. Trust is more of a conditional expectation based on at least some corroborating evidence and established credibility. Making a provisional acceptance of scientific conclusions, only on condition that these conclusions have been vigorously vetted and tested by other scientists, all data made available to the public, and the proof of those conclusions plain to see in the pudding of such things as laptop computers and space shuttles, is not in the same ballpark as believing in fairies on the basis of absolutely nothing.
Trusting scientific conclusions without personally verifying the tests also includes an inherent understanding that those conclusions could be proven erroneous. Faith includes no self-correction at all.
Science operates without a shred of faith – just the opposite. It runs on pure skepticism and doubt.
Oh come on, this is getting ridiculous.
What is?
People are now having a serious discussion about whether claims that can be verified are basically the same as claims that can’t. Unless every person verify every fact there’s always a microscopic chance that science is a gigantic web of lies. YOU CAN’T BE 100% SURE!
Maybe I’m being whooshed, but that is the whole premise behind science–you can’t be 100% sure. It’s part of science’s strength, and not a weakness.
Bingo.
I don’t think people are having a serious discussion about it at all. One side is trying desperately to equate them and the other side is saying the first side is full of shit.
No, we’re having a discussion about whether claims that can’t be verified are the same as claims that aren’t- and I didn’t say anything like “science is a gigantic web of lies”, but thanks for making shit up about my position.
For the record, I am to all intents and purposes an atheist, except inasmuch as I think the Kalam cosmological argument makes sense (and doesn’t contradict scientifically established fact).
Thanks for that.
Dude, you keep pulling the “atheism is just like religion! I have a cite! Science is faith-based! It is it is!” cards. Don’t blame me when you look like an idiot.
Part of it is reliability. You turn on your PC, and it works 99.9% of the time. When it stops working, you repair it. You pray, and the results are no different from random. You can trust your microprocessor, but have faith in Windows (I keed.)
Another indicator is the results of even a superficial investigation. You look at a science book or paper (such as they were) from 1800 and you can tell that pretty much all their questions have very good answers today. You look at Tom Paine’s criticism of the Bible from the same period, and see that the same questions are open.
Cold fusion is an excellent example. They had a press conference before going through the necessary verification steps. All they had was an unverified experimental result, and a hypothesis. Attempts at reproducing their result failed. Anyone believing in cold fusion now is absolutely doing so out of faith. They tend to get laughed at. Not everything claimed to be scientific is. They are a great example of why, even if you are very excited about a result, it is best to wait until others have looked at it.
Your position seems to be that I’m taking a scientific claim on faith unless I have personally investigated it. I dare say just about every scientific claim is checked by someone, somewhere. It’s also a lot harder to get away with making shit up if you never know which claim someone will decide to test. So that’s where the “web of lies” comes from. For any commonly accepted scientific statements to be false it would have to involve some kind of massive conspiracy. But yeah, I suppose it’s not completely impossible.
I think we all walk on faith at some point in our lives. There is a juncture where trust and faith intersect, a place where we leave one and join the other, it’s something I refer to as ‘educated faith’. I can trust that the guy who tightens the lugnuts on the wheel of the airplane I’m riding in did so to the best of his ability, but I don’t KNOW that.
Because my life is in the balance, I place faith (which I think is reserved for the truly precious things) in something I cannot see and do not know; the work ethic and knowledge of a person I have never met and will likely never know. The airplane mechanic in this case may as well be god.
God won’t pay your rent and arrogance won’t get you into heaven. Better to say you’re not sure and be right than say you are sure and be wrong.
Actually, it’s entirely possibly for a commonly accepted scientific statement to be false through simple error- and if the error is one of thought rather than rigor, it’s entirely possible for the same mistake to be made by several people.
Still not the same. There’s very convincing evidence available that the incidence of airplane crashes due to improperly fastened lugnuts is very low. Planes are also regularly checked for this kind of thing between flights, by people other than the mechanic. People who are motivated to find flaws.
God on the other hand is completely pulled out of a hat with no evidence of any kind.