Robert Perkins wrote in message . ..
On 25 Nov 2003 08:09:26 -0800, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:
Robert Perkins wrote in message . ..
Experimentation is based on faith.
No.

Yes.

Classically, an experiment is designed to disprove an hypothesis.

Yes, I agree. But I'm not talking about how experiments are designed,
I'm talking about the mindset of a person who follows the directions
of the experiment, in an attempt to verify or disprove. If you do the
experiment, and it's properly designed, then you're interested in the
outcome. That's faith.

No. That is interest in the outcome. Interest is not faith.

If you didn't believe in [believe in WHAT, exactly?--FF]
the first place, one
way or the other, you wouldn't go to the trouble of doing the
experiment.


No. The experimenter can be said to have faith in the experimental
method, that is to say faith that the question being posited can
be answered by conducting experiments. Perhaps that is what you
are driving at. But an experimenter should not have faith in
a particular outcome, and indeed it is when the outcome is
unexpected that the gretest opportunity for advancement is
realized. I'll readily agree that scientists have faith in
the method of science. It is continuing doubt in the conclusions
derived from the use of the scientific method that is the
driving force behind pure science.

As, for example, when one of Rutherford's students incorrectly
assembled an experimental aparatus and discovered backscatter of
alpha particles. Rutherford had never looked for backscatter, one
could say that he had faith that there would be none.

It seems were are not discussing this in an appropriate newsgroup.
If you wish to follow-up, feel free to post (preferable not
cross-post) in an appropriate newsgroup.

--

FF