Minnesota GOP lawmaker Mary Franson dismissed climate change concerns in a state committee hearing, saying her faith in Jesus Christ—not scientists—guides her view
Only what you aren’t capable of reasoning on your own. I can’t reason astrophysics, so I take what astrophysicists say on faith. I can reason some physics, though, and I have to either accept that there’s a giant conspiracy with upper level physics, or that the people who study it know what they’re talking about. Each takes a kind of faith, but the latter requires much less.
Yes, although science requires some empirical measurements too, so unless that’s a gaschromatograph in your pocket and you’re not just happy to see me, quite a bit of faith is implicit in our understanding of the world. Deserved, but faith nonetheless.
I mean, I can get a gas chromatograph, then test it however many times I need to, to prove to myself that it’s accurate, then use it to test whatever I’m suspicious of. I don’t feel the need personally, but if a person wants to, they can. It’s honestly not even as expensive as I would have expected- plenty of options under €1000.
And for more advanced science, the same applies- it would require a lot more faith to believe that everyone with more than two college chemistry classes is lying about the nature of the world than that they’re not.
But yes, you need faith in either direction. Just a lot less of it if science is real.
The Royal Society in London, a scientific institution since the 1600s, official motto is “On no one’s word”. One of the fundamental ideas of science is that everything should be reproducible. You literally don’t need to take anything on faith.
Science still requires faith of a sort.
Only what you aren’t capable of reasoning on your own. I can’t reason astrophysics, so I take what astrophysicists say on faith. I can reason some physics, though, and I have to either accept that there’s a giant conspiracy with upper level physics, or that the people who study it know what they’re talking about. Each takes a kind of faith, but the latter requires much less.
Yes, although science requires some empirical measurements too, so unless that’s a gaschromatograph in your pocket and you’re not just happy to see me, quite a bit of faith is implicit in our understanding of the world. Deserved, but faith nonetheless.
I mean, I can get a gas chromatograph, then test it however many times I need to, to prove to myself that it’s accurate, then use it to test whatever I’m suspicious of. I don’t feel the need personally, but if a person wants to, they can. It’s honestly not even as expensive as I would have expected- plenty of options under €1000.
And for more advanced science, the same applies- it would require a lot more faith to believe that everyone with more than two college chemistry classes is lying about the nature of the world than that they’re not.
But yes, you need faith in either direction. Just a lot less of it if science is real.
Yep. Which is all I’m saying to several people’s apparent shock and horror.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The Royal Society in London, a scientific institution since the 1600s, official motto is “On no one’s word”. One of the fundamental ideas of science is that everything should be reproducible. You literally don’t need to take anything on faith.