Yes, like ether was kind of a place holder. It goes in and out of favor. I don’t know that much about dark matter but I grew up right next to fermilab. They were successful in their experiments, but that took a bunch of faith that it would work. Same *with the cern and the hadron collider. Astronomy is probably the biggest area that you have to have faith in, because there aren’t a lot of ways to test it. I suspect that religious people also test their religion in the same way, no matter what they say or do on the outside.
No, faith is not involved in science. At all. Unless you’re a terrible scientist.
The ENTIRE POINT (well, an extremely important axiom of good experimentation) of a good experiment is it has to be falsifiable. Faith means nothing to an experiment. Faith has no home in science. They didn’t have faith that experiments would work. They had proof that experiments would test something valid, and had questions that should be falsifiable or provable by the data they’d collect.
If you run an experiment where the results cannot be proven one way or the other, it is a bad experiment. Period.
Your insistence on wedging the word ‘faith’ in to experimentation is only indicative of your utter lack of understanding of the very core axioms of science itself.
Science looks for truth that DOES NOT REQUIRE human involvement what so ever. At all. Faith is a belief. An emotion. The ENTIRE POINT of science is to remove the fallible human elements. It requires NO faith.
In fact, it demands a lack of faith. Experiments HAVE to be falsifiable and reproducible for clearly explained and understood trains of logic proved by previous experiments.
Much like mathematical proofs, if your “proof” is constructed in any part on assumption, “faith”, or unclear or disconnected evidence, it is not considered true. It’s EXACTLY WHY gravity is only a theory even though it’s effects are totally undeniable. It is NOT because of faith, but exactly because science requires ZERO faith.
Yes, theory. It is NOT scientific fact. It is only supported because there is much evidence to support its occurence, NOT because scientists have “faith” in it. There is DATA behind it.
Also, there is new data that brings its occurence in to (some) question, and scientists are looking in to it, as opposed to idiots who would merely “have faith” that it occurred and not further examine it.
Again, your insistence on using “faith” only proves how little you understand of science or its products. In fact, it makes me doubt you even understand what the word “faith” even means…
Why are you so angry and judgemental about this. You need to have faith in a theory to explore it, yes? If you didn’t, you would let it go. I’m saying faith and theories are similar, if not the same.
There is a difference between confidence and expectation and faith. The scientific method has 5 steps.
Question
Research
Hypothesis
Experiment
Conclusion
Yes, as a general rule, scientists believe a certain outcome will occur. This isn’t faith, though, this is an expectation based on their knowledge and the research they’ve done to design the experiment. They then go on to ignore their beliefs and test it anyway. They do this because they don’t operate on faith, they operate on proof. And if the outcome isn’t something they expect, which has certainly happened, they then try to find out why, design new experiments, and perform further studies until they have confidence that they have a good understanding of what they’re studying.
If they were operating on faith, they could skip all those steps and just go on what they believe, like with Aristotle believing women had fewer teeth. This leads into other related components of the scientific method: verification and repeatability. A good experiment can be repeated by another scientist and get the same results. And why would they repeat the test? Certainly not due to faith!
No. No one needs faith to understand where knowledge is lacking. You speak as if you’ve never had a question to answer in your life. Genuinely, a pathetic experience of the unknown.
Mind sharing an example of this? Do you mean dark matter/energy?
Yes, like ether was kind of a place holder. It goes in and out of favor. I don’t know that much about dark matter but I grew up right next to fermilab. They were successful in their experiments, but that took a bunch of faith that it would work. Same *with the cern and the hadron collider. Astronomy is probably the biggest area that you have to have faith in, because there aren’t a lot of ways to test it. I suspect that religious people also test their religion in the same way, no matter what they say or do on the outside.
No, faith is not involved in science. At all. Unless you’re a terrible scientist.
The ENTIRE POINT (well, an extremely important axiom of good experimentation) of a good experiment is it has to be falsifiable. Faith means nothing to an experiment. Faith has no home in science. They didn’t have faith that experiments would work. They had proof that experiments would test something valid, and had questions that should be falsifiable or provable by the data they’d collect.
If you run an experiment where the results cannot be proven one way or the other, it is a bad experiment. Period.
Your insistence on wedging the word ‘faith’ in to experimentation is only indicative of your utter lack of understanding of the very core axioms of science itself.
Science looks for truth that DOES NOT REQUIRE human involvement what so ever. At all. Faith is a belief. An emotion. The ENTIRE POINT of science is to remove the fallible human elements. It requires NO faith.
In fact, it demands a lack of faith. Experiments HAVE to be falsifiable and reproducible for clearly explained and understood trains of logic proved by previous experiments.
Much like mathematical proofs, if your “proof” is constructed in any part on assumption, “faith”, or unclear or disconnected evidence, it is not considered true. It’s EXACTLY WHY gravity is only a theory even though it’s effects are totally undeniable. It is NOT because of faith, but exactly because science requires ZERO faith.
Again, big bang theory.
Yes, theory. It is NOT scientific fact. It is only supported because there is much evidence to support its occurence, NOT because scientists have “faith” in it. There is DATA behind it.
Also, there is new data that brings its occurence in to (some) question, and scientists are looking in to it, as opposed to idiots who would merely “have faith” that it occurred and not further examine it.
Again, your insistence on using “faith” only proves how little you understand of science or its products. In fact, it makes me doubt you even understand what the word “faith” even means…
Why are you so angry and judgemental about this. You need to have faith in a theory to explore it, yes? If you didn’t, you would let it go. I’m saying faith and theories are similar, if not the same.
There is a difference between confidence and expectation and faith. The scientific method has 5 steps.
Yes, as a general rule, scientists believe a certain outcome will occur. This isn’t faith, though, this is an expectation based on their knowledge and the research they’ve done to design the experiment. They then go on to ignore their beliefs and test it anyway. They do this because they don’t operate on faith, they operate on proof. And if the outcome isn’t something they expect, which has certainly happened, they then try to find out why, design new experiments, and perform further studies until they have confidence that they have a good understanding of what they’re studying.
If they were operating on faith, they could skip all those steps and just go on what they believe, like with Aristotle believing women had fewer teeth. This leads into other related components of the scientific method: verification and repeatability. A good experiment can be repeated by another scientist and get the same results. And why would they repeat the test? Certainly not due to faith!
No. No one needs faith to understand where knowledge is lacking. You speak as if you’ve never had a question to answer in your life. Genuinely, a pathetic experience of the unknown.