No.
>Or perhaps do they have good reason, like the other person
>is educated and has published in a peer reviewed journal?
Yes.
>If they believe
>whatever is in black & white, then I would call it faith. Otherwise it most
>certainly is not.
Yeh, but I was saying "technically" faith in order to say that scientists do
take other people's word on something, BUT the understanding is that those
people are hammering the issues with debate and experimental evidence, on
your behalf.
I think I made a later point about 'faith contests' in religions, whereby
often there's a negative judgement attached to people raising doubts about
articles of faith. An analogue of... replicating experiments being frowned
on in a scientific context.
>I'm starting to get the impression that I'm the only one around here that
>has a scientist's perspective on faith (as described in, say, Carl Sagan's
>excellent "The Demon Haunted World"). Is it just me and Carl vs. the
>world?
I hope I've managed to persuade you that you're not.
Well, not completely...
Because I think there's certainly elements of religion-style
faith-in-the-face-of-evidence, within the boundaries of "scientific" thought.
This manifests as people resisting new ideas which disagree with the ones
they've been holding for ages. Memes defending their territory.
So you're not alone in your ideals, though I reckon that if you managed to
implement those ideals 100%, you'd be pretty statistically isolated.
Dave Pape
==========================================================================
I am ready.
Phonecalls: 0118 9583727 Phights: 20 Armadale Court
Westcote Road
Reading RG30 2DF