- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 37,454
But...isn't science always based on faith of some sort, when you've proven something, there's faith that the data is enough for it to be true, even IF there's a chance it's not. What do you call trusting that "mayb" to not be true?
Soz mate, nope.
If, through experimentation, I determined that that a certain action would produce the wanted result 90% of cases, then I would act that way in all the cases, full in the knowledge that 10% of the time I would come unstuck.
However, I would attempt to come up with a better theory to improve my odds, even if it meant destroying the one I was currently using.
No faith required. Just a method which is always subject to change - sometimes radical change.
I can give an example of this that proves the above:
We used Newton's theory of Gravity to calculate trajectories of space-ships.
We no longer do that - we use Einstein's theories as they're more accurate.
However, we know Einstein's theory is also incorrect, so for the past hundred years theoretical physics has been obsessed with finding the correct one, whilst using the best they've currently got...