What is "anti-science"?

[shunyadragon]

You can say you have “faith” in the scientific method if you want, but that’s about all. The established scientific theories have progressed beyond mere faith in their factual accuracy; they have been multiply tested and verified and resulted in technology which has transformed the modern world.

The use of the word 'faith' is classically being misused as it has been for millennia on Tweb as a classic 'red herring' to create a high fog index between religion and science.

As an important basis of science I have 'faith' (different definition) in uniformitism, but nonetheless every time research is carried out testing the hypothesis of uniformitism that the results will have uniform predictive results as with all scientific research since Newton and before.

[Kbertsche]

The use of the word 'faith' is classically being misused as it has been for millennia on Tweb as a classic 'red herring' to create a high fog index between religion and science.

As an important basis of science I have 'faith' (different definition) in uniformitism, but nonetheless every time research is carried out testing the hypothesis of uniformitism that the results will have uniform predictive results as with all scientific research since Newton and before.

I agree that "faith" is often misused on TWeb to cloud science-faith issues. It is the non-Christians who misuse it, with claims such as, "religious folks have faith, but scientists don't". Such claims are false and disingenuous.

"Faith" simply means "trust", "confidence", or "belief". Scientists need faith just as do non-scientists. Scientists have faith in their methods, their data, and their conclusions.

Here is the Oxford Dictionary entry:

Source: Oxford Dictionaries

faith
NOUN

1 Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
'this restores one's faith in politicians’

2 Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
‘bereaved people who have shown supreme faith’

_2.1 A particular religion.
‘the Christian faith’

_2.2 A strongly held belief.
‘men with strong political faiths’

© Copyright Original Source

And here is Merriam-Webster:

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of faith
plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\

1
_a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty * lost faith in the company's president
_b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions * acted in good faith

2
_a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
_b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof * clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return (2) : complete trust

3
_: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs * the Protestant faith

© Copyright Original Source

Atheists and other anti-religious folks often try to make the word "faith" much more restrictive than it really is, and to make it apply only to the religious realm.

[seer]

As an important basis of science I have 'faith' (different definition) in uniformitism, but nonetheless every time research is carried out testing the hypothesis of uniformitism that the results will have uniform predictive results as with all scientific research since Newton and before.

Right, but you can not know if uniformity will hold tomorrow, or that the laws of nature we experience necessarily hold in the rest of the universe that we have no access to. That would be arguing from the particular to the universal - or inductive reasoning. Those assumptions we do in fact take by faith. We trust that they are so.

[TheLurch]

Atheists and other anti-religious folks often try to make the word "faith" much more restrictive than it really is, and to make it apply only to the religious realm.

For what it's worth, i'm not anti religious, but i don't find it helpful to use faith as a synonym for confidence, simply because it doesn't convey what you intend to mean to most people. It's not a religious issue; it's an effective communication issue.

[Kbertsche]

For what it's worth, i'm not anti religious, but i don't find it helpful to use faith as a synonym for confidence, simply because it doesn't convey what you intend to mean to most people. It's not a religious issue; it's an effective communication issue.

I don't buy it. The general public commonly uses the word "faith" to mean "confidence", especially in political contexts. E.g. Trump was elected partly because voters lost faith in Hillary.

[TheLurch]

I don't buy it. The general public commonly uses the word "faith" to mean "confidence", especially in political contexts. E.g. Trump was elected partly because voters lost faith in Hillary.

I can only speak to my personal experience, but people view saying you've got faith in a person and faith in data differently.

[Sparko]

If you want to define things that way, i have no issue. It's just not the same as my definition. And, as i'd rather stick to scientific issues, i'm not especially interested in debating semantics.

There is an interesting scientific issue here that may be worth bringing forward, though. I think it's fair to say that, in both our personal experiences, there has to be either electrons or something that's practically indistinguishable from them. Add in the experiences and research of others, and the case becomes far more decisive. We don't know, however, how many incompatible physical models are consistent with all those observations. It's actually a major unresolved issue in the philosophy of science, and it has consequences for the significance we ascribe to the fact that a model makes successful predictions.

That said, i'm not especially committed to our current model of the electron being the ONE AND ONLY right one, so it's interesting but not consequential to me.

Hey I do believe in electrons. Like I said the evidence for them is very good. That is why I have the faith that they do indeed exist. But you know science. a year from now they could find new evidence that electrons are merely some manifestation of some other phenomenon like vibrating strings. And when you get into quantum mechanics and such things as entanglement and superposition, it gets even weirder. Could it be that all electrons in the universe are actually the SAME electron?

[Sparko]

Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+faith&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS740US740&oq=definition+faith&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.9196j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Faith - strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

© Copyright Original Source

Science is not based on faith.

Going to that link, that is the second definition. The first one is:

"complete trust or confidence in someone or something."

ScreenHunter_.jpg


Check mate.

[shunyadragon]

Going to that link, that is the second definition. The first one is:

"complete trust or confidence in someone or something."

[ATTACH=CONFIG]22547[/ATTACH]


Check mate.

Nope!!!!! You obviously cannot play chess!!!

Already addressed that. First the definition you cite has a high fog index and could mean anything. The definitions describe different cases, and the one involving theology is specific. Tassman I already addressed the perspective of science. What science has faith in, the methods, uniformity and falsification, is supported by objective verifiable evidence, and 'faith' in theology is not supported by objective verifiable evidence and consistent predictions. There is a difference, I see your red herrings flopping around on the dock on a hot summer day, and they stink,

[TheLurch]

Hey I do believe in electrons. Like I said the evidence for them is very good.

I'm intrigued by your defining things you trust as things you can see, though, given that vision is much more indirect than many of the electronic sensors we have that can pick up electrons directly. (Vision also depends on the electrons in pi bonds of retinal, somewhat ironically.)

[Sparko]

Nope!!!!! You obviously cannot play chess!!!

Already addressed that. First this definition has a high fog index. Tassman I already addressed the perspective of science. What science has faith in, the methods, uniformity and falsification, is supported by objective verifiable evidence, faith in theology is not supported by objective verifiable evidence and consistent predictions. There is a difference, I see your red herrings flopping around on the dock on a hot summer day, and they stink,

The only fog index is your mind.

I wasn't talking about what science has faith in. I was talking about how you have to have faith in science. You trust what science tells you. You read documents and believe them. You don't go around verifying evidence and repeating the experiments yourself and testing the results. You just have faith that what science says corresponds with reality.

[shunyadragon]

The only fog index is your mind.

I wasn't talking about what science has faith in. I was talking about how you have to have faith in science. You trust what science tells you. You read documents and believe them. You don't go around verifying evidence and repeating the experiments yourself and testing the results. You just have faith that what science says corresponds with reality.

I do not simply trust what science tells me, and that is another red herring. Yes throughout college, and in my job I went around repeating experiments, and demonstrating consistent results as do millions of scientists have done over the millennia. The scientific method and the predictive results over the millennia are the basis of my support of science.

The bottom line is there is not objective verifiable evidence that has predictive value in theological faith as the definition clearly describes,

[shunyadragon]

I agree that "faith" is often misused on TWeb to cloud science-faith issues. It is the non-Christians who misuse it, with claims such as, "religious folks have faith, but scientists don't". Such claims are false and disingenuous.

"Faith" simply means "trust", "confidence", or "belief". Scientists need faith just as do non-scientists. Scientists have faith in their methods, their data, and their conclusions.

Here is the Oxford Dictionary entry:

Source: Oxford Dictionaries

faith
NOUN

1 Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
'this restores one's faith in politicians’

2 Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
‘bereaved people who have shown supreme faith’

_2.1 A particular religion.
‘the Christian faith’

_2.2 A strongly held belief.
‘men with strong political faiths’

© Copyright Original Source

And here is Merriam-Webster:

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of faith
plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\

1
_a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty * lost faith in the company's president
_b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions * acted in good faith

2
_a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
_b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof * clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return (2) : complete trust

3
_: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs * the Protestant faith

© Copyright Original Source

Atheists and other anti-religious folks often try to make the word "faith" much more restrictive than it really is, and to make it apply only to the religious realm.

I disagree, the definition I cite, and you repeated is consistent with theological faith that lacks the objective verifiable evidence that has predictive value in science, but in science it is supported by objective verifiable evidence and consistent predictive value lacking in theological faith. The definition I cited applies only to the religious realm. The uses of the word 'faith' are distinctly different.

Equating theological faith as equivalent to faith in science is the problem of some theists, and not scientists

[Sparko]

I do not simply trust what science tells me, and that is another red herring. Yes throughout college, and in my job I went around repeating experiments, and demonstrating consistent results as do millions of scientists have done over the millennia. The scientific method and the predictive results over the millennia are the basis of my support of science.

The bottom line is there is not objective verifiable evidence that has predictive value in theological faith as the definition clearly describes,

Doing lab experiments for students is not the same thing as verifying all of science that you believe. You take most knowledge that you believe on faith.

[shunyadragon]

Doing lab experiments for students is not the same thing as verifying all of science that you believe. You take most knowledge that you believe on faith.

No, I did more that just lab experiments as do the millions of scientists over the millennia. As cited in the different definitions of 'faith.' Theological faith as defined is not supported by objective verifiable evidence.