Replies

This article makes one good point - that the demarcation standard of science is not as clear cut as some around here would have us believe.

My biggest complaint is that somehow science does not rely on faith. Yes it does. Faith, perhaps not a religious or spiritual kind, does play a large role in science. It is fundamental to it.

Consider trust. As children we do not need to understand the germ theory of medicine in order to follow our parents instructions about washing our hands before we eat. We do it on the basis of trust. (Either we trust that father knows best, or at least we trust that disobedience has consequences.) When we become adults we may continue to wash, not because we trust our parents, but we trust what we have learned about the benefits of cleanliness and disadvantages of its absence.

In science we use empirical evidence. However, empirical evidence does not mean that everyone who accepts data as accurate is an eye witness to a test. We use peer review. But this does not mean that every peer reviews. Nor does this method eliminate error or fraud entirely. Our understanding of the methodology of science causes us to trust the overall process to lead to beneficial results. We generally accept scientific findings as "true" or at least useful. Trust is an integral part of the process.

Some want to diminish the role of faith by confusing it with dogma. A belief that is unwilling to be tested becomes dogma. Unfortunately, many detractors of the role and value of faith are often the most guilty of being dogmatic.