tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1973938108988281018.post4435605491755262378..comments2024-02-06T03:23:37.329-08:00Comments on No Jesus, No Peas: Faith: One word, two meaningsJames Sweethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17212877636980569324noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1973938108988281018.post-28111551376232991102009-08-17T07:46:34.670-07:002009-08-17T07:46:34.670-07:00Faith in science is more like "dealing in goo...<i>Faith in science is more like "dealing in good faith"</i><br /><br />Ah hah, nice, and this explains why the confusion over the word.<br /><br />I do think, as I've said before, that the trust we place in science is more than just a belief in evidence -- we are, indeed, extending "good faith" to the scientists and other researchers to be honest about their results and to have done a halfway competent job.<br /><br />Anyway, yeah, I think you hit the nail over the head in terms of why the term is overloaded: Accepting a particular proposition "on good faith" implies something entirely different than accepting a proposition "on faith". Unfortunate, that ambiguous English language...James Sweethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17212877636980569324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1973938108988281018.post-17994577812353921862009-08-15T15:51:39.826-07:002009-08-15T15:51:39.826-07:00Faith or trust, with science, U can haz evidins.
R...Faith or trust, with science, U can haz evidins.<br />Religion offers no such evidence that is repeatable or can withstand much scrutiny.<br /><br />Religion offers no useful models for anything (regardless of good intentions, say, with <i>some</i> of religion's morals). Science offers good models, where applicable, and continually approximates better or more specific models as necessary.<br /><br />Faith in science is more like "dealing in good faith" - a social or contractual relationship will not be abused. It is the faith that thousands of scientists, over extended periods of time, and with differing personal agendas, are not colluding to lie to you for some bizarre reason.<br /><br />Faith in religion is simple blind acceptance that something is the "inspired word of god", and acceptance that the person preaching his version has got his interpretation right. Thinking, far from being required, is discouraged.entropyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01946704031330312408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1973938108988281018.post-55811743536978175502009-08-14T06:24:47.076-07:002009-08-14T06:24:47.076-07:00I was going to drag out the old chestnut "tru...I was going to drag out the old chestnut "trust but verify" myself...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1973938108988281018.post-45337114681898807912009-08-13T21:28:00.352-07:002009-08-13T21:28:00.352-07:00Absolute certainty is impossible. We have to spec...Absolute certainty is impossible. We have to specialize to promote as a species, so we can't all study medicine and the law and raise children and manage finance. We specialize and we rely on each other. It's when one industry/set of individuals being reliable that things fall apart. (Think Wall Street.) <br /><br />I think faith is belief without evidence. My firm belief that the sun will rise at about 6 am-ish tomorrow isn't "faith". It's based on mountains of evidence. 99% of life happens somewhere between "zero evidence" and "absolute certainty". It's when you can't accept that gray area that you need religion to make everything black and white and above all SIMPLE. Clearly, the reliance we non-scientists have on the scientific method, the peer review process, and respectable journals is necessary. Neither of us is science, and it is the arrogance of creationist non-scientists who think they are BETTER qualified to interpret data.Angie Jacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04739748828902693432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1973938108988281018.post-61781088165998429502009-08-13T13:25:30.508-07:002009-08-13T13:25:30.508-07:00"...unlike faith, trust is both earned and re..."...unlike faith, trust is both earned and revocable."<br /><br />Also, trust can be revoked for just the part that failed, where faith, if it is broken, tends to fail completely. For example, suppose a single scientist lies about his/her results. Those of us who trust in the scientific method and the scientific consensus will remove our trust from the specific scientist, but will probably consider our trust in the scientific method to have been validated (since that is probably what uncovered the lie). Those who merely have faith in science could lose that faith completely over the lies (or even honest mistakes) of a single scientist.<br /><br />As for the scientific consensus vs. the scientific method: A moderate degree of trust in the honesty of individual scientists, a moderate degree of trust in the competitiveness of individual scientists, and a very high trust in the scientific method (and its self-correcting mechanisms) combine to give me a fairly high trust in the current scientific consensus.Margarethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16199879535909581777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1973938108988281018.post-70675401741602809542009-08-13T12:05:42.978-07:002009-08-13T12:05:42.978-07:00It's more (or, less?) than that though... I&#...It's more (or, less?) than that though... I'm not just talking about trusting the scientific method, I'm talking about an implicit trust in the scientific consensus, unless proven otherwise. <br /><br />For instance, I have not particularly looked into the data showing a link between smoking and lung cancer, yet I implicitly trust the scientific consensus that there is a link. I have no direct knowledge of whether any study linking the two used a valid methodology, whether the data was strong enough to show a real correlation, etc. Even if I was aware of such a study, I would still be assuming the data wasn't falsified.<br /><br />A certain amount of this can still be justified, e.g. if I had looked at all of the papers, the fact that the conclusions were consistent might be sufficient evidence that the data wasn't falsified. But I haven't even done that. I just trust that the scientific consensus is correct, and I don't think mere "trust in the scientific method" is enough to justify that.<br /><br />I think you are onto something with the word "trust" though. "Trust" in a particular entity or idea allows me to believe the object of the trust with what would otherwise be insufficient evidence -- but unlike faith, trust is both earned and revocable.<br /><br />Yeah, I like that... I have "trust" in science -- not just the scientific method, but in the present scientific consensus. But I don't have "faith" in the scientific consensus, because this trust has been earned through past results (unlike faith, which starts from nothing), and I recognize that, despite my trust, the scientific consensus might be wrong.<br /><br />I think you've got it. It's a difference between "trust" and "faith".James Sweethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17212877636980569324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1973938108988281018.post-21711278764009038632009-08-13T10:52:23.122-07:002009-08-13T10:52:23.122-07:00I think maybe you're looking for a phrase like...I think maybe you're looking for a phrase like "trust in the scientific method"? If a religious person said to me, "Ah ha! I have faith in God, you have faith in science.." I'd pretty quickly answer them, "No. I have trust in the scientific method."Mariahnoreply@blogger.com