To: Dimensio
I didn't say they are equivalent, you did. I simply state that you must have a faith in the scientific method in order for it to apply. It may "make sense" to you, for example. You've accepted the notion for so long, you don't realize that there are simply premises that must be accepted.
145 posted on
11/25/2005 5:23:34 PM PST by
AmishDude
(Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
To: AmishDude
You are mincing words. You have faith in your religious beliefs, which are independent of evidence.
Scientists trust in the scientific method based on several centuries of experiment and improvement.
If we were to believe you, then how did the scientific method evolve? It didn't just spring into existence all tested and ready to go, did it? No. It was developed through trial and error (or in the case of my field, by trowel and error).
Faith does not evolve in this manner. It is based on an entirely different origin and it is not accurate to equate the two.
147 posted on
11/25/2005 5:30:06 PM PST by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: AmishDude
I didn't say they are equivalent, you did. I simply state that you must have a faith in the scientific method in order for it to apply
So if you weren't trying to make an equivocation, why bring up the word "faith" in the first place? Why use that word when it's clear to anyone with a brain that its dual meaning can cause confusion?
149 posted on
11/25/2005 5:33:25 PM PST by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson