Faith in science

Originally posted by @sonhouse
It is your particular brand of ignorance that forces you to want to foist on the science community that they only have faith.

They have confidence, plus or minus some window. That is what they have. If someone shows them something outside that window, they mostly at first will refuse to believe it but if the experiment in question is repeated with the ...[text shortened]... s is as far from faith as you can get. This is persistence and patient and sometimes dull work.

Show me a science discipline based on 'faith'. Faith in what?

Faith in the scientific method. Your complete trust and confidence is in the use of the scientific method.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
[b]Show me a science discipline based on 'faith'. Faith in what?

Faith in the scientific method. Your complete trust and confidence is in the use of the scientific method.[/b]

They USE the scientific method because so far it works. If something better comes along they will use that. Why do you think it is 'complete trust'? If you use a pair of pliers to twist two wires together, is that a matter of faith that I know using pliers can twist wires? What if I find out I can use a cordless drill for the same thing? Have I now lost 'faith' in pliers?

You continue to want to foist 'faith' on scientists as if that justifies your 'faith' in god. The two concepts are as far apart as light and dark. It seems somehow if science doesn't work by faith, then somehow you think religion is somehow being attacked. You have faith in your god, fine, just don't try to foist off 'faith' to science. BECAUSE SCIENCE CHANGES. You don't seem to be able to get past that point. If you life to be a thousand years old, to you JC died on the cross and came back 3 days later and all that will NEVER change for you, you are stuck with it. Science is not stuck on anything. Take a look at what Gallileo did, completely changed our vision of our place in the universe. After him the talk about Earth being the center of the universe faded to what it is now, nutter territory. Then Newton figured out how planets go in orbits around the sun or their parent planet. Then Einstein figured out what gravity actually is, Newton just knew something was going on but couldn't pin down what it actually was and thought gravitational attraction happened at infinite speed but we know now it happens at the speed of light which is a fundamental aspect of space. There are a number of physicists and cosmologists trying to work out other versions of how gravity works and you can be sure they don't have 'faith' in Einsteins' gravity, they want deeper understanding than the undisputed genius of Einstein figured out because they think there are deeper things going on that eluded even big Al.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
[b]Show me a science discipline based on 'faith'. Faith in what?

Faith in the scientific method. Your complete trust and confidence is in the use of the scientific method.[/b]

We prayed your computer into existence.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
They USE the scientific method because so far it works. If something better comes along they will use that. Why do you think it is 'complete trust'? If you use a pair of pliers to twist two wires together, is that a matter of faith that I know using pliers can twist wires? What if I find out I can use a cordless drill for the same thing? Have I now lost ...[text shortened]... instein figured out because they think there are deeper things going on that eluded even big Al.

To be fair though you can't really have much confidence in something that keeps on changing.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
To be fair though you can't really have much confidence in something that keeps on changing.

Go tell that to Rossi as regards his tires, the weight and the geometry of his Yamaha during the races😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Go tell that to Rossi as regards his tires, the weight and the geometry of his Yamaha during the races😵

Fair point I should have specified confidence in being true or unchanging.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Fair point I should have specified confidence in being true or unchanging.

There is nothing that does not change😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
There is nothing that does not change😵

The speed of light in a vacuum supposedly doesn't change. Ever heard of a physical constant?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The speed of light in a vacuum supposedly doesn't change. Ever heard of a physical constant?

For one, it seems you do not understand what exactly the word "supposedly" means.
For two, I 'm sure you keep up hearing of the necessity to hold your beliefs strictly provisionally and have them constantly re-evaluated, but you do not do so. Why is that?

Anyway;
Kindly please check the paper titled “Photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light” by Miles J. Padgett et all, posted online at arXiv.org and accepted for publication at Science News mag, issue Vol. 187, No. 4, February 21, 2015, p. 7.



Edit: "Ever heard of a physical constant?"

Ever heard of singularities during your journey in Physics?
😵

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

Why do you limit the 'faith' in science to just atheists? You think therefore if you are religious you cannot at any time have 'faith' in science? BTW, we don't say 'faith' just because YOU want to foist that religious dripping monogram onto us.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Why do you limit the 'faith' in science to just atheists? You think therefore if you are religious you cannot at any time have 'faith' in science? BTW, we don't say 'faith' just because YOU want to foist that religious dripping monogram onto us.

Putting 'faith' in science is not limited to atheists. Everyone who has 'complete trust or confidence' in science is putting their faith in science.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The speed of light in a vacuum supposedly doesn't change. Ever heard of a physical constant?

I just love it when the ignorant use a tiny fact
to show their knowledge and merely succeed
in showing more ignorance. Well done!

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
I just love it when the ignorant use a tiny fact
to show their knowledge and merely succeed
in showing more ignorance. Well done!

Are you now going to deny the existence of physical constants?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Are you now going to deny the existence of physical constants?

Changing tack again?
Not talking about their existence - talking about their values.

Black Beetle has already given you a reference.
There is much speculation regarding the values of "physical constants"
at the time of the "Big Bang" ie at a singularity.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Changing tack again?
Not talking about their existence - talking about their values.

Black Beetle has already given you a reference.
There is much speculation regarding the values of "physical constants"
at the time of the "Big Bang" ie at a singularity.

The singularity itself is also purely speculation as well so there is that. Unprovable assumptions made upon unprovable assumptions. Yet somehow you believe science has the answers, yes?