timeless, I'm replying not because I'm taking the opposite position, just that either I am not stating my opinion very well, or you're misinterpreting it.
My point was, those who follow science aren't particularly different than those who are religious. We all require some form of "faith" otherwise we would have to work from the most basic principles every time - we have "faith" that those before us were rigorous in their work, we have faith that our instruments don't racially change in accuracy. Some theories in science are (currently) impossible to verify objectively, and yet are clung to much like a religion. Inflation, or string theory for example. I'm trying to hammer the point that science isn't entirely objective (although it should be, and strives to be) and (organised) religion isn't entirely non-empirical. Again I'm not trying to claim they are one and the same.
No you're absolutely dead wrong. There is no faith in Science. Nothing is "clung" to. Science is fundamentally objective. Bad science is discredited all the time.
Ok, so, we can agree that those who study science, aren't that different from those who don't. Correct? Now, as to faith, this comes down to
your definition of faith. I am suggesting that one does have "faith" in science, in the theories, the mathematics, the logic, and all the work up until present that has successfully passed many tests. I am
not suggesting this is the same "faith" that religion has. Yes bad science is discredited all the time, and rightly so. But this does not mean all current theories are universally considered as fact. The weight of evidence varies, and different people can interpret "evidence" in different ways and to varying degree's. Science should be fundamentally objective - but humans are not, and never will be. This is my point - you are stating the ideal, I am stating the reality.
I get the impression you think I am trying to devalue scientific inquiry in some way. Far from it. Merely pointing out that reality is a lot messier than "this is evidence, it is all true, where-as this is all wrong". And ignoring that is ignoring your own biases.
Again this comes down to what people consider to be evidence
No. Opinion doesn't come into it.
Ok, so, people do not have different opinions about say, the microwave background? There is only one universal view that experts in the field share exactly? And the evidence for the various hominin species, that is all completely agreed upon? And of course, inflation, no opinions there, just facts. You see my point? Again, I am not suggesting its all wrong, just that evidence
is interpreted differently by different people, and as it progresses becomes more accepted as meaning one thing. Ignoring that fact does science a disservice. I'm amazed how offended people get when the F-wrd is used in science, almost like one is attacking their beliefs?
it is never a black and white thing and framing everything as "fact" or "fiction" is naive at best.
It is OFTEN black and white. If my water sample boils at 100deg there is nothing to "interpret".
Yes, many things are pretty unambiguous (although the boiling point depends on the pressure, and the purity of the sample) but just because one area of science is pretty solid, does not mean all areas are.
New scientific theories must improve ... but not necessarily "agree with all previous experimental evidence".
Yes they do.
Not really. Plenty of theories have been superseded, and even bolstered by re-interpretation of the evidence. So one could argue the previous "evidence" was based on one opinion, whilst that same data is now shown to mean something else from another point of view. The experimental results haven't changed, by the evidence has.
You're making out like being "scientifically minded" is somehow separate and distinct from "people who are religious".
It must require some serious internal conflict.
I do wonder how some physicists who believe in God reconcile that, the only one I know puts it as claiming that god created the big bang
But again you're assuming people consciously decide to be religious or rational
Assumptions and instinct drive our thinking and how we perceive evidence much more than you think, studying science can allow one to attempt to counter that, but not eliminate it.
No. Evidence is the opposite of instinct and perception.
It is exactly for this reason -- eliminating human perception -- that we can build incredible complex and precise instruments like particle accelerators.
Evidence is a body of facts, but that still requires interpretation. Interpretation is based on experience and opinion. The scientific method tries to minimize, even eliminate, that bias, but I'm saying it can't be truly eliminated - there will always be bias.
I was going to reply to mecha too, but.. I'll just type waaay too much.