I think your definition of faith as "belief without regard to reason" is a fair one; I especially like "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" as offered by my Webster's.
The essential difference is that the scientific method requires replicable evidence. Descartes sought certainty in his own existence in incrementalism--following a chain of logic composed of very small steps, each link one in which he could have great confidence. He stopped short of scientific rigor, however, when he settled for the "faith" of internal experience.
Science raises the bar by requiring that the evidence that generates confidence must be evidence that can be obtained and examined independently by others. Also, science requires the perpetually open mind, the willingness to examine and accept valid falsifying evidence.
Ah, Yes. However a great many people believe that all answers are to be found through science. That is nothing more than belief in something for which there is no proof. There is no "raising the bar"
in this case. In fact it is just as misguided as the litoral
creationsts.
I am confident of the ability of science to yield true knowledge about the world
Yes, I feel the same. Show me your confidence or evidence of it. What is empirical about it? Where is the science in it?
because of the persuasiveness of the methodology and the powerful manipulations of the world that science has made possible. Faith can offer no evidence at all but leaps (like Descartes but with less reason) to certainty
It is when people go beyond what we truly know
that violates the ideal of the scientific method. Having "confidence" and the phrase "the persuasiveness of the methodology and the powerful manipulations" is your belief about science. These are your personal views. Nothing more. Stick to facts without indulging in your beliefs.
What is true about what we know is that we know very little. The rest is faith and belief.
™ Version 4.2
