It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Despite the circularity of the definitions, it is clear that trust is founded on a reliable relationship, whereas faith is founded on an unproven belief.
NiNjABackflip
reply to post by DJW001
Despite the circularity of the definitions, it is clear that trust is founded on a reliable relationship, whereas faith is founded on an unproven belief.
Do you not trust the dictionary?
I understand what you're getting at, and I agree. But this is my point. If you have trust in "science", why not employ the scientific method to at least verify? Until you do, you are taking science as an unproven belief. To trust something merely because it's called science...well that's a leap of faith.edit on 24-12-2013 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)
But it is not science that I trust, it is the people who practice it. If they lie about their research, they stand to be exposed. It's just that simple.
The same can be said of believers and priests.
They not only cooperate, each team submits others' work to intense, jealous review. If someone falsifies data, it will eventually be discovered, and that can end a career. (Cf: "Cold Fusion." ) If something passes the peer review, you can readily trust the results.
If you happen to find a problem with something generally accepted by the scientific community though, research it, get your findings peer-reviewed, and publish it. That's the great thing about science: it revises itself based on what is observable and proven. Observe something? Prove it, and science will adjust its view. Simple as that.
Link
VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
You realize that you just asserted a false dichotomy right? I'd expect nothing better from people here though to utilize cheap debate tactics.