Science is based on faith?

[Eddie the head]

Faith
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction
\Merriam-Webster


Depending on the perspective than yes. You have to believe your approach to whatever science you are doing is correct and that requires a faith in your understanding of how the factors in your experiment or study work

Oh, for gods sake I have explained this 4 times already. I'm sorry, but this same point has been used by other people at least 4 times before this, and it was just as pointless then. And I am getting tired of saying this over and over. Yes the definition of faith leads it's self to be used in this manner, but the Connotation of the word is religious. Meaning it is incredibly poor communication to use the word faith in this context. Calling Nova propaganda is not wrong, but it doesn't get the point across.

 

[darlarosa]

Faith
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction
\Merriam-Webster


Depending on the perspective than yes. You have to believe your approach to whatever science you are doing is correct and that requires a faith in your understanding of how the factors in your experiment or study work

Oh, for gods sake I have explained this 4 times already. I'm sorry, but this same point has been used by other people at least 4 times before this, and it was just as pointless then. And I am getting tired of saying this over and over. Yes the definition of faith leads it's self to be used in this manner, but the Connotation of the word is religious. Meaning it is incredibly poor communication to use the word faith in this context. Calling Nova propaganda is not wrong, but it doesn't get the point across.

People can use words how they want, and we interchangeably use it by those three definitions. It's a matter of contextualizing it. Generally yes faith can be used by those definitions. It just depends on what a person is talking about. Religious faith is one thing, being faithful is another, and having faith based on a perception/observation

That and dude...who is forcing you to respond? If your actually honestly truly sick of it you wouldn't have responded that many times, or even cared. At least that's what I'd assume a perfectly reasonable not overreacting person would do... I would assume. You don't have to blow up at me I didn't poke your craw.

 

[semitope]

Dawkings has it covered.

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

tldr version, Faith is belief not based on any evidence, science is based on evidence which is independently tested and verified and peer reviewed by other scientists to prove it correct. If a scientific theory is proved incorrect then it is changed to reflect the evidence.

This is old but there is something that needs to be cleared up here. I don't know yet if anyone has responded, but "Faith" by the definition that is probably being represented is not without evidence, it is without proof.

A lot of people cannot seem to appreciate the difference. Faith is actually quite widespread and there is no doubt that doing science requires some kind of faith in something. Even in your own mind as you carry out your tests.

Again, the definition of faith that is likely at issue here is without "proof" NOT without "evidence".