Faith in science

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Wrong.
Quantum Mechanics
Chaos Theory
The roll of a die.

All are random but predictions are made.

When you throw a die you can predict that it will land on one of six options. Whoopy. Ground breaking indeed.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
When you throw a die you can predict that it will land on one of six options. Whoopy. Ground breaking indeed.

What are you on about?

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
What are you on about?

I've given up trying to work that out.

When I have a conversation with a normal person (with a reasonable education) I take it for granted that we'll have some 'shared knowledge' that will enable constructive conversation or argument. - So, for example, if I referenced Winston Churchill, the person I spoke to would not question the existence of Winston Churchill but would accept the reference matter of factly and not allow it to derail the discussion.

With Becker however he is just as likely to respond 'prove that Winston Churchill existed' and then reject any source provided, or else claim my assertion that Winston Churchill existed was subjective.

Originally posted by @js357
Science relies on faith (definition 1).

Therefore science relies on faith (definition 2).

Can we all agree that this argument is patently (definition 1) stupid (definition 2)?

Yep.

That would be the a vast majority consensus on what those words mean.
I hope.

-Removed-

faith
fāTH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms:trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms:religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Atheists put their faith in science. Do you agree or disagree?

Accepting conclusions based on well-researched evidence isn't "faith". Accepting that a talking snake caused the downfall of mankind—that's faith.

Originally posted by @vivify
Accepting conclusions based on well-researched evidence isn't "faith". Accepting that a talking snake caused the downfall of mankind—that's faith.

If no one has ever seen it happen, yet the claim is made, then it must be taken by faith.

Of course trying to convince a true believer that his faith isn't simply the truth is impossible.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I've given up trying to work that out.

When I have a conversation with a normal person (with a reasonable education) I take it for granted that we'll have some 'shared knowledge' that will enable constructive conversation or argument. - So, for example, if I referenced Winston Churchill, the person I spoke to would not question the existence of W ...[text shortened]... t any source provided, or else claim my assertion that Winston Churchill existed was subjective.

And yet how many times have people on both sides of this seeming divide done the exact same thing? Hardly a topic goes by anymore, when someone reacts to the conundrum of not having anything better to say by saying, "what do you mean by 'X'?"

I mean, I generally only see one language in these forums (for the most part), and yet people still have to resort to filling up the gaps in their argument (and, yes, to derail the discussion) by stalling with, "what do you mean by 'X'?"

And yes, both sides do it.

Originally posted by @eladar
If no one has ever seen it happen, yet the claim is made, then it must be taken by faith.

Of course trying to convince a true believer that his faith isn't simply the truth is impossible.

So is educating the stubbornly and willfully stupid, apparently.

Originally posted by @suzianne
So is educating the stubbornly and willfully stupid, apparently.

Acvording to Jesus, his truth os rejected by most. Since your beliefs are in line with the majority, enjoy them while you can.

Originally posted by @vivify
Accepting conclusions based on well-researched evidence isn't "faith". Accepting that a talking snake caused the downfall of mankind—that's faith.

Do you accept the conclusions offered by the Miller-Urey experiment?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
I've given up trying to work that out.

When I have a conversation with a normal person (with a reasonable education) I take it for granted that we'll have some 'shared knowledge' that will enable constructive conversation or argument. - So, for example, if I referenced Winston Churchill, the person I spoke to would not question the existence of W ...[text shortened]... t any source provided, or else claim my assertion that Winston Churchill existed was subjective.

Historical claims about people that lived during the past century can't really be compared to historical claims about myths that supposedly happened thousands of years ago if the only reference you have is a blog.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Do you accept the conclusions offered by the Miller-Urey experiment?

Do you accept the facts from the Miller-Urey experiment and similar which followed?

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Do you accept the facts from the Miller-Urey experiment and similar which followed?

Which 'facts' exactly?