Your refusal to understand elementary issues of science will keep you from understanding science. As your 'peers' move on to learn about scientific theories, you will be spouting ridiculous views of anti-evolution, anti-cosmology, etc. Maybe its no big deal to you, but you should know that you are not commited to any understanding of truth.

***Poor understanding of your interpretation of science!***

Not at all. I cannot think of a competent astrophysicist who would equate stellar fusion with the faith of religion. Your idea that because we lack absolute knowledge means that 'anything goes' is absolutely ludicrous and clearly indicates that you have a poor, poor understanding of science.

***Who are you to define science?***

I'm telling you how it is. If you think that only my definition precludes absolute knowledge, then I can only shake my head. I thought you were a smart kid. I guess you aren't smart enough to overcome your own close-mindedness. Too bad for you.

***I think what I have said makes complete sense. You do have faith in the unobservable. We obviously are not going to agree on this one.***

I have faith in the inferencing process that leads me to believe that unobservables are properly validated and/or falsified. In the scientific sense, I don't have faith in unobservables themselves. If that were the case, then what happens when science falsifies an unobservable? Do I stop having faith? That's not the case. I never had faith in the unobservable in the first place. My faith was in the methods and processes that I was able to arrive at those conclusions. If the methods and processes lead me to think differently, then my belief in those unobservables also crumble.

Faith is a valuable tool and I don't give it and take it away that easily. We always must be aware where our faith comes from. If it is in the men and women of science, then I think we can be disappointed. If it is in the rational nature of the world then that faith is sound. All of science stems from that basic faith.

Warm regards, Harv

• Ok. - kc2gwx - June 4, 2002 - 22:01 UTC
  • Scientifically proven? - harvey1 - June 4, 2002 - 23:56 UTC