Quote:
Originally Posted by Voice  Belief and knowledge tend to close the mind. (If evidence to the contrary appears, you will doubt the evidence. You will judge not by appearances, because you KNOW.) Faith is the opposite. It is UNknowing. It is opening the mind to what may be, releasing preconceptions.
Thus (using these definitions) science excels through faith. Scientists have faith, in that they open their eyes, forget what they 'know', and observe what is. They walk into the darkness, unknowing, to find the light. From this, belief and knowledge forms - scientific knowledge. Even this is not absolute. |
I would disagree with this. Faith is not observing what is; faith is "belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority". Scientific knowledge is not born of faith, but of doubt, so if knowledge leads to doubt, then that is not a bad thing. If someone came in and told me that the sky had changed to purple, I would doubt this statement; I would go and investigate for myself. If I had blind faith in the bearer of this news, then I would believe this thing without questioning, without investigating, and without "finding the light". What if, in fact, the window were replaced with red glass, creating the illusion of a purple sky? A scientist, doubting the statement that the sky is purple, would investigate and likely discover this. Or, if the sky HAD changed to purple, the scientist would make observations over time, investigate the reason behind the change, and possibly redefine his knowledge of the sky.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robert King Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, 1962 Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue. |