[MD] Faith/Skepticism

[Ham Priday]

Platt, Michael, Andre, Steve and all --


Aren't we carrying "Faith" a bit too far by applying it to Science?  After 
all, if it requires faith to accept empirical evidence as factual, then you 
might as well say that all experience or reasoning is a matter of faith.

I think Steve said it best in his recent post to Michael:

> Everyone agrees that proof is beside the point. What do we
> have proof of?  The question is whether or not we have good
> reason to believe. When people have good reasons, they use
> these reasons to try to justify their beliefs. When people's reasons fail 
> them, at that point they appeal to faith.

Human knowledge is relative because it is derived from experience.  That 
means man does not have access to absolute proof or absolute truth. 
However, there is a difference between accepting something on faith and 
reasoning to a conclusion based on the evidence.  You seldom hear a 
scientist claim he has incontrovertible proof for a physical principle or 
theory, let alone the ability to discover ultimate truth. Yet, how many 
times has a preacher or philosopher assured you that a doctrine or maxim is 
"infallible", "self-evident", or "irrefutable"?

The methodology of Science is observation, verification, and conclusion, 
which is always open to falsification.  In fairness, I think this 
effectively removes Science from the realm of Faith.  You can say that the 
scientist is limited by his objectivity or intellectual capacity, or that 
metaphysical hypothesis is outside the scope of Science.  You can even say 
that the reality of Science is not the "true" reality.  But it is really 
stretching Faith to say that it's the basis of scientific conclusions.

(In my opinion.)

--Ham