One of the things that interests me is a seeming assumption in your comment Faith occurs when one has a belief for which incomplete scientific basis exists assumes that scientific evidence is necessary and sufficient for rational proof. Science, love it though I do, is a subset of philosophy, not the other way 'round. How much of mathematics (to give another higher-order (than science) discipline, is capable of proof by the scientific method, frex?
I had mentioned math as separate in the previous paragraph; yes, I agree science is a subset of philosophy. I run into people who are reluctant to admit a use for faith; the purpose of this paragraph was to demonstrate that, however objectively and rationally one wishes to live one's live, one cannot do so without employing a lot of faith. That in fact, one cannot even do science on a society-wide basis without a lot of faith. In this case much of it is eventually subject to testing, but the faith is still there. I suppose those who would object to using faith would call that particular usage something like "working assumptions." There are some parts that are not testable. What is the optimum number of grad students to support doing string theory, for example, to use an arcane current controversy :<). I don't mean to imply that such are the only uses for faith :<).
But that led me to think of the many instances recently where scientists have broken faith by reporting falsely. Poehlman's work was applicable to hormone replacement; that has been a life and death matter for many. In my mind, his was as severe a crime as to design a deadly product to be more addictive so that it will sell and make the producers rich. I was referring to late 20th century, documented events - I agree that tobacco got a good start all by its lonesome. Also, when it did start, its danger wasn't established - and perhaps wasn't as severe compared to other risks that were then part of life.
no subject
I had mentioned math as separate in the previous paragraph; yes, I agree science is a subset of philosophy. I run into people who are reluctant to admit a use for faith; the purpose of this paragraph was to demonstrate that, however objectively and rationally one wishes to live one's live, one cannot do so without employing a lot of faith. That in fact, one cannot even do science on a society-wide basis without a lot of faith. In this case much of it is eventually subject to testing, but the faith is still there. I suppose those who would object to using faith would call that particular usage something like "working assumptions." There are some parts that are not testable. What is the optimum number of grad students to support doing string theory, for example, to use an arcane current controversy :<). I don't mean to imply that such are the only uses for faith :<).
But that led me to think of the many instances recently where scientists have broken faith by reporting falsely. Poehlman's work was applicable to hormone replacement; that has been a life and death matter for many. In my mind, his was as severe a crime as to design a deadly product to be more addictive so that it will sell and make the producers rich. I was referring to late 20th century, documented events - I agree that tobacco got a good start all by its lonesome. Also, when it did start, its danger wasn't established - and perhaps wasn't as severe compared to other risks that were then part of life.
Thanks for dropping by. :<)