Positive people do not abhor those who think differently. Your post is mostly negative.
Being a positive person does not mean that I agree with everything or cannot disagree with empty platitudes.
I do not abhor those that think differently - I welcome them - what I abhor is people that spread empty concepts that have no basis in reality.
I guess that makes you the judge and jury of what is reality or who is right and who isn’t. Positive people do not judge others, what they think or what they believe.
By positive thought I think you mean non-critical thought. Agreement and acceptance of any point of view regardless of its validity is not positive thought - it’s no thought at all.
It may seem that way to negative people, but it is more likely to be logical than negative thinking.
Are you now going to try to make a case against logical thinking? Or are you capitulating to the claim that faith has nothing to do with logical thinking?
I could, many things in this world are not logical but they still exist. The Bumble bee can still fly. Tornadoes still destroy some houses and leave others that are directly in its path. Scientists and others continue to have faith their logic is correct when trying new experiments.
There is nothing illogical about bumblebees flying or tornadoes not travelling a straight path.
No, scientists are testing their logic when trying new experiments. If they had faith in the outcome, that would be confirmation bias. See?
How many more times around this circle,** lekatt**?
Could you please explain to us what is illogical in these two cases, lekatt?
Faith is the ability to rest and act in the comfort of the unknown.
As such is it the ability to do things that don’t seem to make sense to do, given what is known. For some the results may be unpleasant, though for others it may advance humanity though their act. Faith test conventions, and faith test and advances science, faith is useful for tearing down paradigms.
Faith is a beneficial human trait that aids us in reaching further. Faith does not work on a logical level, but of a emotional level. It is the motivation of the heart, not the head and as such a very powerful human motivator, perhaps stronger then the head and rational thinking.
The Man of Faith goes forth into the unknown, blazing new trails, followed by the Man of Logic holding a working flashlight…who notes all the times the Man of Faith screwed up and went down the wrong path.
You realize that calling someone a faith healer is not a compliment, don’t you? Faith may challenge conventions, but only evidence can show that an old convention is invalid. Faith against faith is tomayto vs tomahto.
Faith does not advance science. The holder of a provisional hypothesis should not have faith that it is true, and in fact should design experiments to disprove it. Good scientists give up their hypotheses left and right. If religion were like science each church would fund research to try to disprove the Bible. Today we’re just happy that they don’t torture anyone questioning it.
LOL, pretty darn good way of putting it 
I’m not talking about religious faith here, but challenging conventions sometimes requires faith, as well as expanding the reaches of scientific knowledge.
Take the 3 ‘laws*’ of Clark:
*the word laws taken lightly here as Clark is a science fiction writer, and not like the laws of thermodynamics.
There is strong faith expressed in the 1st law Clark puts forth, is it that kind of faith that is sometimes needed to make the breakthroughs in science IMHO.
Is it really “faith” or putting forward a hypothesis and then testing for its validity.
ex. Scientists hypothesize there’s a particle that has not yet been directly observed. They build elaborate machines and carry out experiments and test for it and make new discoveries which lead to new hypothesies.
- It is Clarke, not Clark. And I’ve read nearly every word he ever wrote. Were you aware that he was an atheist? Clarke was also far more than just a science fiction writer, though I’m not sure he was ever a working scientist. (If so it was in the late 1940s.) He was an early member of the British Interplanetary Society, wrote the first paper advocating a communications satellite parked in geosynchronous orbit, and wrote many best-selling books on space travel in the early 1950s.
I fail to see the relevance of his laws to faith. The first law is all about how scientists get stodgy with old age (define in some fields as being above 35.) That is not faith, that is being invested in a theory which might have been controversial when they were younger, and they will always argue it on the basis of science, not faith. The other two laws have even less to do with it.
My work is more engineering oriented, but I’ve written two dozen papers or so, edited many more, and reviewed hundreds - and I don’t recall ever seeing a call to faith in any of them. Not even the crappy ones. Not religious faith, of course, but faith in the sense that anyone should believe their claims without experimental evidence. Lack of backup of claims will get a paper rejected really, really fast.
I bet theology papers don’t have a section titled “Experimental Results.”
And in case he still doesn’t get it, test for it means that the experiment must be able to falsify the hypothesis - otherwise the experiment is fairly worthless.
Notice the disappointment that the Higgs boson matched predictions so well? It would have been a lot more fun if they had to redo everything.
I would say the testing comes later, in Czarcasm statement, that would be the one following with the flashlight.
The first part however, the conjecture that leads to the hypothesis may involve the process of faith.