Bible-beater pilots

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

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

And refreshing...

mike regish

"Steve Robertson" wrote in message
...

I never realized there were so many atheist nuts in aviation. Amazing!

That's what always got me about the terrorists. If they really believed in
allah, and we were really that bad, wouldn't some allah induced terror
befall us?

I guess, in a way, they're saying they're not satisfied with allah's job
performance.

mike regish

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
...

If they trusted in God, they wouldn't have taken matters into their
own hands, IMO.

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 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)

mike regish wrote:

I guess, in a way, they're saying they're not satisfied with allah's job
performance.

Isn't there something in the Christian faith to the extent of "the Lord helps
those as helps themselves"?

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

Robert Perkins wrote:

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

Not in my dictionary. Faith would be not needing to do the experiment 'cause
you know how it's going to come out anyway.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

Robert Perkins wrote:

In scientific method, you advance your hypothesis and propose a test.
Publish it. Anyone who acts to submit your hypothesis to that test is
acting on faith in that hypothesis.

I don't follow your definition of faith, as used here. Would you be so kind
as to provide that definition (instead of an example)?

- Andrew

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 14:34:48 +0000, Wdtabor wrote:

We should run someone against Ted Kennedy, who will surely be elected anyway,
to introduce the public to LP ideas, but in the last two elections, we instead
caused two senate seats to go to Dems that otherwise would have been GOP. The

Running against TK shouldn't be an issue. Nobody will ever win against
him, so go for it.

The way I figure it, he could call everybody a moron, admit to any crime
you care to imagine and he'd be elected. He could run from prison and
win, he's a Kennedy and can not lose. So run against him and put out some
ideas.