NavajoEverclear Posted July 6, 2003 Posted July 6, 2003 sorry for making a new thread just to reply to an old one. Go ahead delete it or whatever if you want Ok i'm going to have a hard time explaining what i am thinking right now, but I am thinking this is somewhat humerous. You call yourself scientists (or maybe you don't shoot me for my assumptions) and yet you are arguing about things in entirely opposite direction. I think we don't know near as much as we think we do when we think we have to defend ourself against the otherside---- as implying that it is not entirely absurd, that the plausibility is threatening and must be combatted. This is not science this is faith. Everything is faith, even science. --- I self destructive statement, you may choose to have faith in even this. But scientifically i believe it is scientifically sound to say everything is about faith. Watching you all is partial proof----- you don't believe what you do because of proof (proof is hard (scientificallyimpossible)) to come buy with any proovable security. You believe what you believe because its what you want to believe. Stop worrying about physics when obviously psychology is the only thing that matters.
greg1917 Posted July 6, 2003 Posted July 6, 2003 That really is an awful lot of BS. Faith rarely has anything to do with science, proof underlines everything that scientists work towards. I dont subscribe theories out of faith. I examine the evidence given and when it matches the theory then thats a reasonable asusmption that theory is correct - im not believeing in faith but because I know it has been proved and is true. Psychology has nothing whatsoever what do with it - if you believe theories out of faith then you either dont understand them/the evidence or are biased towards that particular scientist.
JaKiri Posted July 6, 2003 Posted July 6, 2003 Science is not based on faith. I believe not in the physics itself but in the process that leads to its discovery. You speak on 'proof'; yet you obviously don't understand the nature of empiricism. I know very well that science will never have the rigour of mathematics, but that is inherent to the method, inherent to the problem.
KHinfcube22 Posted July 6, 2003 Posted July 6, 2003 Science itself isn't based on faith, but one could saythat in the process of proving one thing to be fact, one must have faith in what one is doing. If you don't, then you are probably doing half-heartedly, wich would change the outcome of the expirement. So one could say, you can't have science without faith, but couldn't say that science is based on faith.
JaKiri Posted July 6, 2003 Posted July 6, 2003 Originally posted by KHinfcube22 Science itself isn't based on faith, but one could saythat in the process of proving one thing to be fact, one must have faith in what one is doing. If you don't, then you are probably doing half-heartedly, wich would change the outcome of the expirement. So one could say, you can't have science without faith, but couldn't say that science is based on faith. You can calculate how inaccurate the experiment is, so there's not much faith there either.
Recommended Posts