Subject:
|
Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 2 Sep 1999 18:40:43 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@STOPSPAMnovera.com
|
Viewed:
|
1707 times
|
| |
|
|
<37CE909B.EB040221@voyager.net> <FHFyw9.5nI@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Not to be argumentative, but... :-)
David Eaton wrote:
> Anyway, the faith of the scientific method was to what I was
> referring. Science has faith in its method.
This may be semantics, but I just don't see it as "faith". We are
reasoning beings. Science is about applying reason and evidence to
making predictions. I just don't see that my taking as a given that my
senses tell me the truth and that I can reason about things is faith.
If it is by your definition, then so is the fact that we exist, that we
are cognizant, everything. And that's then a meaningless definition.
I'd prefer to use the definition of faith to partition questions into
those that we are willing to accept the answers to as revealed truth,
without proof (that is, on faith) and those that we are going to use the
abilities we have to work out for ourselves (that is, via
reason, logic, and proof).
Many people are willing to accept the answers to many questions as
revealed truth, that is, on faith. That's fine for them, if they choose
not to be rigorous, that's their perogative.
I don't accept anything as revealed truth. Nothing. I don't take things
on faith. Nothing. I expect to be able to work out a chain of logic and
proof for anything that I care to. Now, I can take people at their word,
but that's not the same at all. It merely means that I don't choose to
spend the effort to verify.
Note carefully that to understand a theory and to be able to use that
theory to make predictions are two different things. I don't UNDERSTAND
electron migration but I can use it to design chips that will last
longer, because it makes predictions about minimum radii for inside
corners on wire runs.
> It assumes that if a theorem is
> sufficiently tested, and shown to be accurate, that the theorem is correct.
Well, actually, no. c/correct/can be used to predict things/ No theorem
is ever "correct".
Until we get over this hurdle of faith, I can't comment on ethics.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
