Hail, Oh Infallible Science!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You didn't respond to the charge, I noticed.

which charge?

Originally posted by KellyJay
We all view the universe with our limited knowledge and understanding.
We fill in the gaps of what we know with what we think is true, we can
work it out for ourselves, or trust another, but we are sill filling in the
blanks with faith and beliefs. It is still faith and beliefs in action, what
you want to place your faith in you may choose, but you are ...[text shortened]... hat the universe
should be like, and what we want out of it, and sometimes they
don't.
Kelly

"We all view the universe with our limited knowledge and understanding."

Yours is more limited than most.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
which charge?

The one KJ put to you in that post.

Originally posted by KellyJay
What you are putting faith into may be different, but you are still
using faith which comes from you.
Kelly

How do you know I have any faith in anything? you are making statments of fact about something you know nothing about. in this case whether or not I (or scientists in the wider context) have faith in anything. I do not use faith in anything. I do not have faith in anything. I do not fill in the blanks with faith. if you want to make a factual statement to the contrary then you must support it with evidence.

Originally posted by KellyJay
We all view the universe with our limited knowledge and understanding.
We fill in the gaps of what we know with what we think is true, we can
work it out for ourselves, or trust another, but we are sill filling in the
blanks with faith and beliefs. It is still faith and beliefs in action, what
you want to place your faith in you may choose, but you are ...[text shortened]... hat the universe
should be like, and what we want out of it, and sometimes they
don't.
Kelly

"Originally posted by KellyJay
We all view the universe with our limited knowledge and understanding."

it is true no one, collectively or individually, has complete knowledge of everything. kind of like stating the obvious but we all do that from time to time so ok.

" We fill in the gaps of what we know with what we think is true, we can work it out for ourselves, or trust another, but we are sill filling in the blanks with faith and beliefs. It is still faith and beliefs in action, what you want to place your faith in you may choose, but you are going to be putting it in one thing or another. You have no choice that is the way it is with mankind we are people of faith, the blanks will be filled in with something. "

In philosophy there is a basic premise that "In order for they’re to be knowledge, according to most thinkers, at least three criteria must be fulfilled. A thought must be justified, true, and believed. Some claim that these conditions are not sufficient, as Gettier case examples allegedly demonstrate." (wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge , see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief )
it basically means that to 'know' something that knowledge must be true and believed to be true and that you have justification for the belief. thus it is not blind belief with out evidence or faith that we are talking about here. in other words knowledge does not require faith. for you to have knowledge of my dinner table, then my dinner table would have to exist (otherwise it is not truth), you would have to believe that it existed (or you wouldn't know it existed) and you would have to be able to justify that belief.
as to what you do with blanks in your (societies) knowledge is not a given. some people certainly do have a tendency to fill in the gaps in their knowledge with faiths beliefs ideas and stories. It’s where the world’s myths and legends come from. lightning was hurled by an angry god. comets were signs of impending doom and that our lives were governed by the motion of the planets through the sky.
However the fact that some (indeed many) people do this does not mean that everyone does or that it is the only way to do things.

" As the scripture says we see as if through a glass darkly in the here and now. What we do next is take it upon ourselves to mold what we want the universe to be like, and we do what we will too. Sometimes those things agree with each other, our views of what the universe should be like, and what we want out of it, and sometimes they don't.
Kelly"

The glass used to be a whole lot darker, and it is getting lighter at an exponential rate.
Science is based on the idea that if you don't know how something works or why something happens you do experiments to find out. you may hypothesise ways in which it might work, however these hypotheses last only as long as the data supports them (or at least doesn't contradict them) and are useful in defining what experiments need to be conducted. there are holes in our knowledge, they were vastly bigger back in the day when 'scripture' was written. they have been made smaller by mans scientific discoveries. If you wish to claim that science and scientists have to have faith in some part of the process/lives whatever then give a clear example where that happens so we can discus it. otherwise this is a mud-slinging contest, and science has more powerful mud guns 😉

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The one KJ put to you in that post.

I stopped taking him seriously a long time ago.

Originally posted by KellyJay
We all view the universe with our limited knowledge and understanding.
We fill in the gaps of what we know with what we think is true, we can
work it out for ourselves, or trust another, but we are sill filling in the
blanks with faith and beliefs. It is still faith and beliefs in action, what
you want to place your faith in you may choose, but you are ...[text shortened]... hat the universe
should be like, and what we want out of it, and sometimes they
don't.
Kelly

you really dont have a clue about things KJ. Please dont quote 'scripture' at me , pretending there is equality of reliability between it and science.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I stopped taking him seriously a long time ago.

perhaps thats why he doesn't take you seriousely either?

Originally posted by googlefudge
perhaps thats why he doesn't take you seriousely either?

If kelly occasionally conceded a point in a loosing argument we'd all take him more seriously

Originally posted by googlefudge
perhaps thats why he doesn't take you seriousely either?

If Kelly would occassionally make coherent arguments we'd perhaps take him seriously. He tends to decide whether or not things occur on an arbitrary basis, rather than using any type of logical distinctions.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As further testament to the unerring rightness of science, what a great week for those who hold unswervingly to limited understanding.

Introducing Nix and Hydra, two of (at least) three moons in Pluto's orbit--- previously held to be but one. Who says science can't be trusted?

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=46760&page=1

Originally posted by ivanhoe
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=46760&page=1

Your point being?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
If Kelly would occassionally make coherent arguments we'd perhaps take him seriously. He tends to decide whether or not things occur on an arbitrary basis, rather than using any type of logical distinctions.

I was trying to entice one out of him. Maybe I haven't been around long enough to give up hope.