Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie
[On faith in science:
I suppose it helps to define ones terms. The definitions of the term faith are varied indeed as a simple google query for "define:faith" will show. They range from narrow, specifically-religious definitions such as: "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny" to more broad definitions such as "complete confidence in a person or plan" or "belief in the truth of an idea". I will agree that scientists don't exercise faith if one uses the narrow religious definition of the term; however, I believe an argument can indeed be made when using a broader definition of the term. My operative definition of the term is generally "a belief in something that I can't prove or that I don't know for certainty". Is it logical to believe the earth is 250M years old? Absolutely. Is there credible data to support this belief? Yes. Does this data-backed, logical, supported belief make more sense than any other available theory, supernatural or otherwise? Yes. Does anyone know for certainty? Not unless they were around 250M years ago. To me, that is faith.
|
If you weren't intending to analogize between scientific hypotheses or theories and religioius faith, I don't know what point you were trying to make in bringing faith into this.
The extent and certainty of scentific "belief" that the earth is 250 million years old begins and ends with the objectively verifiable evidence and whatever uncertainties may exist with respect to that evidence. The concepts are fused. No scientist has a stake in the issue except insofar as what hypothesis or theory may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. No scientist claims to know for certain. They would gladly be persuaded that the earth is 6,000 years old or 250 billion years old if the best available evidence and reason so suggested. When they tell you they estimate it to be x years old they will add all kinds of provisos and caveats because that for them is truth, and the kind of truth that is their currency. They don't assume or even believe in anything that can't be hypothesized or theorized form objective evidence and reason. So I don't understand how you arrive at the conclusion that this constitutes any kind of faith whatsoever, under the first, second, third, whatever Websers' definition of faith.
I have read that it takes faith to believe in reason, to believe that things are as your senses perceive them to be, and that things are supposed to make sense. That's an arguably profound point, but it's not the one you have made and it's not usually the point religious poeple try to make when they say scientists engage in faith.