Besides, Dan is putting his faith in someone he knows quite well. He knows what Alex is like lying, and telling the truth. That makes it less chancy than putting your trust in an unknown person.
Faith is believe without evidence. Science is believe in evidence. While it takes faith to believe that science can solve any specific problem, it doesn’t to believe that science works.
That’s what I thought. If you could provide a quantitative method for measuring faith, you’d probably be on TV giving your Nobel acceptance speech about now (and not for the apparently worthless Peace Prize).
Until then, you should work on learning the difference between fact and opinion.
*steps down off of soap box*
Sorry about that folks. I’m not really very passionate about the whole science vs. religion thing. But using the word “fact” when the correct term is “opinion” – that’s just bad grammar.
Nevertheless, belief in science does require a kind of faith. Faith in the uniformity of nature; faith that repeating experiments and discovering patterns is a good way to make predictions about the future. It seems pretty sensible, but there’s no way to prove that it works.
Faith in Science is akin to having faith in a Philosophy. Which is similar to faith in Religion. (Anyone who’s taken Philosophy 101 should recognize the similarity.) The big difference is that faith in Conventional Science is backed up by evidence & observation. That said, there is some evidence for some religious beliefs. (Noah’s Great Flood, parting of the Red Sea, etc.)
Science is based around a framework of theories, facts & evidence. But no person could have PERSONALLY tested out the validity of every theory & every piece of evidence. As such, everyone who believes in Science has to take it on faith that all facts & evidence was gathered honestly – in a professional, unbiased fashion. True, Science dictates that all experimental results must be able to be duplicated in a controlled environment in order for them to be considered valid. But, there is at least SOME possibility of bias, error, & even corruption.
For that matter, how can Science prove that the Laws of Physics as we know them are the same everywhere in the Universe? Humans have only been able to test such laws & theories on Earth & (to a small extent) the Moon, right? That’s a VERY tiny sampling of the Universe.
It can be claimed that the Speed of Light is the same everywhere in the Universe based upon telescope & radio astronomy observations. But such observations were made from Earth & the instruments themselves rely on the Speed of Light as it is on Earth. Interestingly, it is now claimed the Speed of Light is changing. But why couldn’t that be due to the passage of time on Earth being accelerated? (Speed is a function of distance & time.)
I just have a problem with scientists who get all preachy. Some even act as if Science is the Gospel Truth & anyone who dares question it is either a moron or a heretic. Funny, I did well in science classes & I used to LOVE Science…
um. because i desperately want to beleive in something larger than myself that helpsme escape from my boring-ass life as a med student? oh. sorry to sound pathetic but there you go….
It takes faith to believe in science too. But that’s another discussion for another time. 😛
You can have faith AND believe in science. People seem to forget that. :/
Besides, Dan is putting his faith in someone he knows quite well. He knows what Alex is like lying, and telling the truth. That makes it less chancy than putting your trust in an unknown person.
Faith is believe without evidence. Science is believe in evidence. While it takes faith to believe that science can solve any specific problem, it doesn’t to believe that science works.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg
I LOVE XKCD!
Yea, don’t look too deep into this kids. It’s just trying to mesh the two things together for the sake of storytelling.
Random fact: It takes more faith to believe in the Big Bang Theory than to believe that God made the universe.
A fact? Prove it.
…
That’s what I thought. If you could provide a quantitative method for measuring faith, you’d probably be on TV giving your Nobel acceptance speech about now (and not for the apparently worthless Peace Prize).
Until then, you should work on learning the difference between fact and opinion.
*steps down off of soap box*
Sorry about that folks. I’m not really very passionate about the whole science vs. religion thing. But using the word “fact” when the correct term is “opinion” – that’s just bad grammar.
😉
Nevertheless, belief in science does require a kind of faith. Faith in the uniformity of nature; faith that repeating experiments and discovering patterns is a good way to make predictions about the future. It seems pretty sensible, but there’s no way to prove that it works.
Faith in Science is akin to having faith in a Philosophy. Which is similar to faith in Religion. (Anyone who’s taken Philosophy 101 should recognize the similarity.) The big difference is that faith in Conventional Science is backed up by evidence & observation. That said, there is some evidence for some religious beliefs. (Noah’s Great Flood, parting of the Red Sea, etc.)
Science is based around a framework of theories, facts & evidence. But no person could have PERSONALLY tested out the validity of every theory & every piece of evidence. As such, everyone who believes in Science has to take it on faith that all facts & evidence was gathered honestly – in a professional, unbiased fashion. True, Science dictates that all experimental results must be able to be duplicated in a controlled environment in order for them to be considered valid. But, there is at least SOME possibility of bias, error, & even corruption.
For that matter, how can Science prove that the Laws of Physics as we know them are the same everywhere in the Universe? Humans have only been able to test such laws & theories on Earth & (to a small extent) the Moon, right? That’s a VERY tiny sampling of the Universe.
It can be claimed that the Speed of Light is the same everywhere in the Universe based upon telescope & radio astronomy observations. But such observations were made from Earth & the instruments themselves rely on the Speed of Light as it is on Earth. Interestingly, it is now claimed the Speed of Light is changing. But why couldn’t that be due to the passage of time on Earth being accelerated? (Speed is a function of distance & time.)
I just have a problem with scientists who get all preachy. Some even act as if Science is the Gospel Truth & anyone who dares question it is either a moron or a heretic. Funny, I did well in science classes & I used to LOVE Science…
“It takes faith to believe in science too. But that’s another discussion for another time.”
I beg to differ. But that’s another discussion for another time.
um. because i desperately want to beleive in something larger than myself that helpsme escape from my boring-ass life as a med student? oh. sorry to sound pathetic but there you go….
Who’s better to trust than your own brother? Have you seen The Lion King?
And yet he was so positive his brother was lying when he told him he simply woke up with the necklace.