[QUOTE=chalsall;348553]It can be argued that any belief system which can't be proven is a leap of faith.[/QUOTE]Ah, a strict Popperian.

Presumably you would take the statement "the universe is flat" as a leap of faith. Even if every single measurement of ever increasing accuracy ever made shows that the curvature is zero within error bounds, it remains possible that the curvature may be non-zero.

The same could be said of the law of conservation of mass-energy, of electric charge, of angular momentum, global entropy increase, ...

[QUOTE=xilman;348557]Ah, a strict Popperian.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely.

[QUOTE=xilman;348557]Presumably you would take the statement "the universe is flat" as a leap of faith. Even if every single measurement of ever increasing accuracy ever made shows that the curvature is zero within error bounds, it remains possible that the curvature may be non-zero.

The same could be said of the law of conservation of mass-energy, of electric charge, of angular momentum, global entropy increase, ...[/QUOTE]

We can add decimal points to the measurements. But we cannot *know*.

That, IMO, is one of the most important touch-stones of the Scientific Method.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't act based on the most likely truth; simply that we should always be willing to admit that we might be wrong. That's what makes us the strongest -- we're always asking questions; even and especially of ourselves.

[QUOTE=xilman;348557]Ah, a strict Popperian.

Presumably you would take the statement "the universe is flat" as a leap of faith. Even if every single measurement of ever increasing accuracy ever made shows that the curvature is zero within error bounds, it remains possible that the curvature may be non-zero.

The same could be said of the law of conservation of mass-energy, of electric charge, of angular momentum, global entropy increase, ...[/QUOTE]
... and, of course, Newton's law of universal gravitation, prior to the early 20th century.

I, for one, would certainly take all of those statements and laws as a leap of faith. The difference between religion and science is not, to my mind, about the use or absence of "faith" when presenting results, but instead has to do with the manner of achieving the results and the ability to modify those results when presented with new evidence.

Basically I suppose I'm saying the same thing as chalsall here (just read his last reply on previewing my post).

[QUOTE=xilman;348557]...is zero within error bounds...[/QUOTE]

Have you considered that the most interesting things tend to be found in the noise?

At the edges?

[Quote="Isaac Asimov"]The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but 'That's funny...[/quote]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;348564...]
I, for one, would certainly take all of those statements and laws as a leap of faith. The difference between religion and science is not, to my mind, about the use or absence of "faith" when presenting results, but instead has to do with the manner of achieving the results and the ability to modify those results when presented with new evidence.
[/QUOTE]

Well, if we're going to differentiate science from religion as sources of
knowledge, we must identify the roots of the two methods. Elevating
faith, the only means religion provides for acquiring understanding of the
universe and its workings, to the level of reason, science's province,
smears the two concepts (faith and reason) into one amalgam, whose
only result can be the destruction of reason. They are NOT
compatible or interchangable ideas. While I agree with your point about
the "manner" of achieving knowledge, I can not accept the attribution
of the phrase "leap of faith" to scientific concepts. Nor agnosticism,
as in it's all an approximation, we can't really know. Science and
math can provide certainties, and where there's still doubt, one still
has some proven certainties within it.

[QUOTE=davar55;348682]While I agree with your point about the "manner" of achieving knowledge, I can not accept the attribution of the phrase "leap of faith" to scientific concepts. Nor agnosticism, as in it's all an approximation, we can't really know. Science and math can provide certainties, and where there's still doubt, one still has some proven certainties within it.[/QUOTE]

While I understand and respect what you're saying here, I don't entirely agree.

Outside of mathematics, nothing can be proven. Science can only disprove things -- it cannot prove them.

This is why I (and not to speak for Brian-E here, but I suspect we're on the same wave-length) use the term "leap of faith". We believe that Science is the better and more honest methodology since it's always testing itself; but we admit we cannot say we're absolutely sure.

IMO, one should always bring both Occam's razor, [B][I][U]AND[/U][/I][/B] Gödel's incompleteness theorems et al, to bear. Einstein, for example, would have been well advised to have done so.

[QUOTE=chalsall;348569]Have you considered that the most interesting things tend to be found in the noise?

At the edges?[/QUOTE]It's a bad habit of mine, answering rhetorical questions, but of course I have. Are you familiar with the term "Socratic reasoning"?

[QUOTE=xilman;348711]Are you familiar with the term "Socratic reasoning"?[/QUOTE]

Yes.

Aren't rhetorical questions supposed to be answered by other
rhetorical questions? And isn't that especially true when asked
for the purpose of educating?

[QUOTE=davar55;348715]Aren't rhetorical questions supposed to be answered by other
rhetorical questions? And isn't that especially true when asked
for the purpose of educating?[/QUOTE]

Yes, usually. But sometimes the rules have to be broken to make progress.

Edit: Sorry... I sometimes try to be funnier than I really am....

[QUOTE=davar55;348715]Aren't rhetorical questions supposed to be answered by other
rhetorical questions? And isn't that especially true when asked
for the purpose of educating?[/QUOTE]And why do you think I responded in the way I did?