Degrees of Faith?

quote:

---

There is nothing at all to suggest that non-empirical evidence does not exist.

---

There is nothing at all to suggest that non-empirical evidence exists, either.I mean, if we can't sense it in any way, it doesn't matter if it exists or not, because we wouldn't be able to detect it whatsoever.We can therefore consider it as irrelevant as if it didn't exist at all....since, of course, it doesn't, as far as we can tell.

quote:

---

Is it reasonable to continue to trust a group that has provided knowledge that helps to destroy our environment and our health?

---

Do not confuse the findings of science with how those findings are used (or misused).Science is merely a method. To say that it is science's "fault" that pollution exists, for example, is like saying that the manufacturers of a hammer are to blame when someone uses it to bash in another person's skull.And how has science "destroyed" people's health?Before scientifically-based medicine and scientific investigation of both agriculture and nutrition, life expectancy was half what it is now, and illnesses and conditions we consider no big deal, even trivial, these days used to kill great swaths of people.Childbith, influenza, and cuts come to mind as a few.

quote:

---

So is there evidence that the scientific method that people use does yield true knowledge about the natural world?

---

Yes.This evidence is known as "successful predictions".

quote:

---

The key difference is that I can objectively corroborate my sense data with other people.
We can independantly analyse the data, test it and come to common and consistent conclusions about reality.
We can independently make predictions based on these conclusions and then test EACH OTHERS predictions to verify that our common conclusions are sound and that our perception of reality is actually consistent with each other.

​

Through mass consistency of perception and detailed independant predictive testing we come to the reasonable conclusion that there is a common physical reality, or physical truth, for all.

---

Iano ignored this very argument a few months ago when I used it to address the very same error he continues to make in this new thread, Straggler.Don't hold your breath for a substantive reply.

quote:

---

However a great many people believe that all answers are to be found through science.

---

Like who?I'm married to a scientist, and he certainly doesn't believe that all answers to every question are to be found through science.Many of our friends are scientists, and none of them have said this, either.I do not think that a single science supporter on this board has expressed such a claim, either.In many years of reading science books and magazines, I have never read that claim.Science can answer many questions about natural phenomena, but the method cannot be employed to find anwers to moral or ethical or aethetic questions, for example.

quote:

---

What is true about what we know is that we know very little.

---

Compared to what?

quote:

---

Agreed, but the method is only as good as the observation. If the observation is flawed or limited, then the answer will be flawed or limited.

---

All human knowledge has always been, and will always be, flawed and limited.The point is, methodological naturalism allows for flaws to be corrected, and limitations to be reduced, although we will never have perfect knowledge, since humans are not omnicient.I fail to understand how this is important, however.

quote:

---

So scientists still have faith in the system even though it allows for wrong answers.

---

I'd say that scientists "trust in the reliability" of the scientific method, to be more accurate.If you want to use "faith" as shorthand for "trust in the reliability of", fine, but I think that muddies the waters when comparing that to religious "faith".

quote:

---

IMO, the average person has become conditioned to accept that scientists find the right answers. That's why people get distressed when scientists in the media contradict each other. (The same way people get distressed when preachers contradict each other.) The average person usually doesn't have the means to determine who is right.

---

That's rather true in the United States, but rather less true in other countries where people are taught to think better and receive more science education.Personally, I blame the Conservative politicians that made it fashionable to dislike and disparage academics and other educated "elites".Indeed, you are joined by many, many people in this country in your decision to, in part in your case I gather, reject science in favor of non-science-based remedies and medicine. You believe, wrongly, that science has ruined our environment and our health. All in all, you have displayed a great deal of resistance to scientific thinking in the recent threads regarding healthcare.You mistrust the FDA so much that you don't want any of the "natural" drugs or treatments or therapies to undergo the same scientific testing that all other drugs, treatments, or therapies undergo.I'd say that you are pretty typical of the "average person" regarding their trust of science and scientists.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, faith per the definition does not.

---

Sure it does.When the scientific method is applied to faith, faith will always lose.Or, rather, science will always lose, since God is unfalsifiable.There's no way to "prove" somebody's faith "false".That is a rejection of correction.

quote:

---

Since there are people of faith who are scientists, that isn't a completely true statement.

---

LOL! But the people who are scientists who are also belivers don't apply the scientific method to their faith.If they did, and accepted the outcome, they wouldn't have faith anymore.

quote:

---

That's faith.

---

I you want to call "trust based upon experience, but subject to revision if needed after testing" "faith" then fine.If you think this is a problem, explain what the problem is.If you want to call that "faith" (as in "religious faith", then it is a completely fickle "faith".

quote:

---

The one fan had faith in his team, the other one didn't use the scientific method so I don't see your point. He made an observation, but didn't run any experiments for others to replicate.

---

The point was, I think, that there are different kinds of faith.And the second fan IS doing using basic science; he's making predictions about the natural world based upon evidence.

quote:

---

If you can't separate a Faith as in religion from having faith in something, then our discussion probably won't progress.

---

How ironic.You've been consistently equivocating on the different definitions of the word "faith" in your posts in this thread, and yet here you are, telling Omni that HE can't separate them!

quote:

---

What if I'm a religious person, and I say, "This seems very likely to be true, but I can't know for certain, of course." What if I think that based on reason and evidence (good or bad, we're not judging the quality of the reasoning or evidence here; let's assume it's not great reasoning or evidence). Do I have faith? I'm not certain, but I am religious (in this scenario). Does this qualify as faith?

---

I'd say that you were an Agnostic.