|
Yes Carl, I also don't feel that 'faith' is a dirty word .. its just not relevant to science.
"Faith is a confident belief in the truth or trustworthiness of a person or an idea .. a belief that does not rest on logical proof or evidence."
We've discussed 'proof' (based on evidence) in this thread and I hope, we've made it clear that there is no 'proof' in science. There is also no 'truth' in science. It seems that 'faith is simply a variant, (or an outcome ?), which relies on the existence of 'proof', and that the 'truth' actually exists, and is actually known presumably, to someone.
I'd like to think that I can both: give, and receive the truth, in say a conversation about some topic. So, in that sense, having 'faith' is definitely admirable .. not dirty.
But when it comes to writing a hypothesis, designing an experiment to test the hypothesis taking steps to ensure the objectivity, conducting the experiment and publishing method and the results (so others can repeat the process), it just doesn't take the prime seat of relevance in the outcome.
Brian's language is perhaps, a product of where he is coming from .. which is a different place from where mainstream science sits.
That's my 2 cents worth, anyway.
Cheers
|