reply to post by -PLB-
Inductive reasoning never results in proof. Not a single finite data set constitutes to proof. In other words, except for mathematics, nothing
in science can be proven.
I would argue that while math is solid in a lot of ways, it is still not infallible, but that is a discussion for another time.
Proof as I see it, is when all avenues and possibilities have been exausted and it leaves only one conclusion without any doubt. The problem is, this
requires absolute knowledge of every variable, and in our limited understanding of the universe we do not, and can not, have that complete knowledge.
So you are correct that nothing can be 100% proven with our current level of knowledge. In theory however, absolute proof is possible, if not
Both fairies and that argument are separate examples, and my point is not to prove that fairies do not exist, but to show that there are valid
arguments to believe that something does not exist, without depending on faith.
And my point was not to prove faeries exist. My point was that without actual measurable evidence, we can't assume they don't exist. Sure an
argument can be made for their non existence, but that would still be an unevidenced theory, not a fact. To believe in this theory, even if some
logical evidence points to it, because it still does not constitute proof, still counts as faith. Just because something is the most likely conclusion
does not make it proven. Until it is proven, it is your faith in the fact that it is the most likely conclusion that maintains your assertion that it
is true. The truly non-faith based answer would be to be completely neutral on the subject.
An argument based on logic can be used as reason to believe in something. When the argument is good, this believe is not faith
That statement is an oxymoron. Belief=faith. Period. There is no debate on that. If you believe in something, you have faith in it. You can't believe
in something and have no faith in it. It doesn't work that way.
To be completely without faith, a good argument cannot sway your outlook or move you to an opinion. The non-faith based answer would be to consider
the argument, investigate the argument if you can, and record your findings, all the while never subscribing to the idea that the subject at hand is
true or false. Now if the evidence gives absolute proof of something, you can accept it as true without opinion being involved at all. However,
absolute proof in many things is still unobtainable at this point.
But faith and proof are not the only two options.
You're right, there are three options. As long as you are certain about something, you have either fact or faith. The only thing in between in
uncertainty. Fact, faith, or uncertainty. Those are the only choices.
There is a large gray area in between. You can believe in things without faith and without proof, but based upon evidence or logical arguments.
By definition, there is no gray area. Having faith in a logical argument is still faith. It's where you put that faith that differs. As long as there
is no proof and you still maintain your argument, it is called faith.
I disagree. You can have a strong believe in something without evidence, but with good logical arguments. So you don't need faith. I would
define faith as "A strong believe without good arguments". Where arguments can be based on evidence or on logic.
When it comes to provable evidence, no argument can exist. The evidence is what it is and no arguments and debates can change that. Arguments come
into play when you try to put conjectured meaning behind the factual evidence. It is unproven conjecture that causes arguments. To have belief in any
of these conjectures when there can be no solid proof, is the meaning of faith. So no, a logical argument does not mean no faith. the fact that there
is even an argument to begin with proves faith and not fact.
it goes without saying that this claim almost never can never be 100% certain. It is not necessary to point this out with every claim you make
as both parties in a conversation are aware of this.
If both parties are aware. Not everyone is that open minded. it's the closed minded people that need the repetition. Like you said, "This isn't an
issue of "these days", but a "flaw" in humans."
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - M. Planck
This quote is an argument of the acceptance of science. Truth by definition does not change if not accepted.