Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts

Re:Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts by mlthoughts2018 on Monday July 13, 2020 @03:32PM (#23824663)

I think the difficulty with making an equivalence between “faith” and this type of fundamental epistemic limitation is that no matter how well-intentioned you are, religious people are going to take the soundbyte and claim it’s “proof that science can’t explain everything” which will then be “proof that god is possible” which will then mean oppressing people whose beliefs they don’t like.

We need a much different concept than faith.

Faith means continuing to believe something that is massively contrary to the evidence, to preserve some type of fidelity or loyalty to a previous belief commitment.

I think this is massively different than acknowledging the fundamental deductive limitations of reasoning about epistemic metatruths.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts by learc83 on Monday July 13, 2020 @05:48PM (#23825944)

>Faith means continuing to believe something that is massively contrary to the evidence, to preserve some type of fidelity or loyalty to a previous belief commitment.

You've just defined faith in a way that wins your argument, but that is not any kind of consensus definition of faith.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts by mlthoughts2018 on Tuesday July 14, 2020 @10:18PM (#23840483)

I don’t agree. I’m saying there exists a difference of kind between the act of belief in inferential integrity of experts despite fundamental epistemic limitations of philosophy, and the separate act of continuing to believe something contrary to the evidence.

The ubiquitous notion of religious faith is similar to the second thing, and is not similar to the first thing. It’s not a matter of consensus or definition.

[ Parent | on HN ]