Bible-beater pilots

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. If you didn't believe in the first place, one
way or the other, you wouldn't go to the trouble of doing the
experiment.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

If you do the
experiment, and it's properly designed,
then you're interested in the
outcome. That's faith.


Not in my lexicon. "Interested in", "Having an interest in" and "believing in"
are three different things.

"Believing in" means running your life and your mind as if the hypothesis were
true.

"Having an interest in" means standing to benefit from others believing in the
truth of the hypothesis.

"Interested in" means curious about; wanting to know whether the hypothesis is
true or false.

In my argot, faith refers to running your life and your mind as if the
hypothesis were true, often to the point of no longer being "interested in"
whether it is =actually= true or not.

Jose





--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On 25 Nov 2003 18:47:22 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:

In my argot, faith refers to running your life and your mind as if the
hypothesis were true, often to the point of no longer being "interested in"
whether it is =actually= true or not.

Then we have a difference in argot, which is no surprise to me. What
you're describing, in my worldview, is *blind* faith.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

In my argot, faith refers to running your life and your mind as if the
hypothesis were true, often to the point of no longer being "interested in"
whether it is =actually= true or not.

Then we have a difference in argot, which is no surprise to me. What
you're describing, in my worldview, is *blind* faith.


OFTEN to the point of... , not ALWAYS to the point of...

In any case, "faith" does not come in when testing a hypothesis. In fact, it's
lack of faith that is involved, after all if you had (enough) faith, you
wouldn't need to test it. So the original statement (maybe not yours) still
doens't ring for me - that testing a hypothesis is an act of faith, blind or
otherwise.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On 25 Nov 2003 21:26:39 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:


In my argot, faith refers to running your life and your mind as if the
hypothesis were true, often to the point of no longer being "interested in"
whether it is =actually= true or not.

Then we have a difference in argot, which is no surprise to me. What
you're describing, in my worldview, is *blind* faith.


OFTEN to the point of... , not ALWAYS to the point of...

In any case, "faith" does not come in when testing a hypothesis. In fact, it's
lack of faith that is involved, after all if you had (enough) faith, you
wouldn't need to test it. So the original statement (maybe not yours) still
doens't ring for me - that testing a hypothesis is an act of faith, blind or
otherwise.

Testing a hypothesis is what got Moses' ass in trouble -- whacking the
rock with his stick, when the Big Guy had just told him to order it
verbally to gush water. No Promised Land for poor Moe.

Thus is Faith defined in Exodus.

Don

In any case, "faith" does not come in when testing a hypothesis. In fact,
it's
lack of faith that is involved, after all if you had (enough) faith, you
wouldn't need to test it. So the original statement (maybe not yours) still
doens't ring for me - that testing a hypothesis is an act of faith, blind or
otherwise.

Testing a hypothesis is what got Moses' ass in trouble -- whacking the
rock with his stick, when the Big Guy had just told him to order it
verbally to gush water. No Promised Land for poor Moe.

Thus is Faith defined in Exodus.



I think that supports my point. I wasn't there so don't know what Moses was
thinking, but it was likely either:

"I don't believe what God told me to do will work. I'll try my method."

-- lack of faith in God's method. Lack of faith being defined in Exodus.
Lack of faith getting him in trouble. (for this to work, the thing one has no
faith in has to be true - lack of faith in gravity will get you into trouble
when you jump off a cliff)

or

"I wonder whether my new method will work."

-- curiosity getting him in trouble. This is similar to wondering whether
flying throug a thunderstorm is a good shortcut. Again, it is not faith that
gets you into trouble. Exodus may be defining curiosity this way, not faith.

In both cases, it is the fact that reality is different from the hypothesis,
and the testing of the hypothesis is dangerous, that gets you into trouble.
Poor expermiental design.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:35:38 GMT, Don Tuite
wrote:

Testing a hypothesis is what got Moses' ass in trouble -- whacking the
rock with his stick, when the Big Guy had just told him to order it
verbally to gush water. No Promised Land for poor Moe.

One: Moses was on face-to-face speaking terms with God. There is
enough in the text of the pentateuch to suggest that the God he saw
looked human in form. ("Moses spoke to God face to face." "I'll show
you my back parts only", and so forth. I'll look it all up if anyone
cares.)

Whacking the rock was not scientific inquiry; the guy had been through
bringing down seven plagues, lifting up his arms to keep his side on
the winning side of a battle, parting (or drying up, you take your
pick) the Red (Reed) Sea. Conversing with a bush. He had a consistent
picture of God. No need for Moe to have faith; he'd been through the
fire already, so to speak. He knew. And then did the wrong thing
anyway.

In my church, we hold this story up as a lesson in *pride*, not faith.

Thus is Faith defined in Exodus.

Two: You're using what you commonly hold as an untrue myth to bolster
a point about faith. How that supports your point, when the premise is
to reject the book altogether and out of hand, sits a bit beyond me.

Rob

Robert Perkins wrote:

Then we have a difference in argot, which is no surprise to me. What
you're describing, in my worldview, is *blind* faith.

I've just reviewed the Merriam-Webster definition of faith. I don't see
anything akin to your use of the word there.

Where do you find faith defined as "interested in the outcome"?

- Andrew

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:02:40 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

Where do you find faith defined as "interested in the outcome"?

In Mormonism, which rejects much of the common definitions of various
liturgical terms, in favor of stuff that makes a different kind of
sense. Because Mormonism is a minority religion worldwide (something
like 0.1% of the world population) you're not likely to find its
usages in the dictionary, unless the terms are exclusive to it.

One example, if you can get past the 19th-century scriptural-sounding
English, is he

http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/32/21#21

And another, here, which proposes an experiment of sorts on "the
word", interpreted by Mormons to mean pretty much any proposition, but
especially the stuff found in scriptures:

http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/32/26-30#26

Rob

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