[MD] Faith

[david buchanan]

Howdy MOQers:

Pirsig said:
"That is true [science cannot proceed without presuppositions] but this 
presuppostion is not an act of faith. Faith occurs when in the presence of 
conclusive contrary information he still clings to his presupposition."

Ian replied:
Very clever of Pirsig, the old rhetorician, to put it this way, but ...this 
just shifts the problem to the definition of "conclusive contrary 
information".

dmb says:
This is just a clever rhetorical shift? Not at all. Look, he's saying that 
scientific presuppositions are faith-based beliefs ONLY insofar as we cling 
to them despite evidence that we should give them up. Pirsig is only 
re-asserting the ordinary meaning of the word faith. I mean, unless there is 
some very serious cheating going on, scientific presuppositions cannot 
survive conclusive contrary information and  nobody is going to trust a 
scientist who clings to one in the presence of such evidence. And I don't 
think Pirsig's answer shifts the problem anywhere. I would think that 
defining what constitutes valid evidence is the next step. Its a good 
question with lots of room for debate, but the basic difference between 
clinging to beliefs or not remains the same no matter how we define it. As 
long as we first agree that evidence matters, then we can work on a 
definition. Or at least we can rule certain things out.

Ian said:
Most "good" scientists hold fast to their tenets, and demand some "good" 
evidence of contrary indications - unless of course the original thought was 
a mere hypothesis, or worse pure supposition, not previously well tested by 
empirical experience. (And there are boundaries to science with very little 
direct empirical evidence - just consistency with other levels of 
observation and explanation.)

dmb says:
Huh? A mere hypothesis not previously well tested? Why "mere"? And isn't a 
hypothesis, by definiton, "a tentative assumption made in order to draw out 
and test its logical or empirical consequences"? (Merriam-Webster) A 
hypothesis is a preliminary model in the scientific process, a step that 
comes before the testing, as the very thing to be tested. Complaining that a 
hypothesis is not well tested is like complaining that the book I'm buying 
tomorrow is not yet read. I mean, its place in the sequence of events is 
what prevents a new hypothesis from being well tested. That's just how it 
works. A hypothesis comes at the front end of the scientific process, but 
the whole point to is find out whether or not it can hold up in the face of 
testing. Its success or failure is then determined by the evidence.

Ian said:
All I'm saying is that the (significant) difference between faith and 
knowledge is qualitative - about the quality of evidence. I'm sure even 
those of "faith" modify their faith in the light of experience. Religion 
evolves too. ...Enough already - we are just arguing the sematics of faith 
and evidence.

dmb says:
How do you figure its just semantics? Isn't that just another way of denying 
the importance of the distinction, which is exactly what the debate is all 
about? Aren't you actually taking sides even though it kinda, sorta looks 
like you're trying to play it down the middle? And if people, religious or 
not, modify their beliefs in the light of experience, then how can we 
rightly call it faith? Again, this way of using the word simply defies the 
distinction. But I don't see how this denial is justified. Its just a not 
very clever rhetorical shift. Like the Creationist, you're using the 
open-ended provisonal nature of scientific truth to cast doubt on its 
validity when in fact that is its strength. That is the very thing that 
distinquishes from faith-based beliefs.

Thanks.
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/