Le 29-janv.-06, à 20:02, Brent Meeker a écrit :
I largely agree with Stathis. I note a subtle difference in language
between Danny and Stathis. Danny refers to "believe in". I don't
think a scientist ever "believes in" a theory.
All right, you use "believe in" (quote included!) for the "religious
belief of the fundamentalist".
Still I hope you agree that the scientist believes in its theory, if
only to be able to acknowledge his theory is wrong when experiments
Cf Belief = B with (Bp -> p) NOT being a theorem!
That implies taking the theory as the foundation of all further
beliefs. In fact most scientists don't "believe" any theory, except
in the provisional sense of thinking them likely, or worth
entertaining, or suggestive.
OK, but this is independent of the fact that, still, the scientist can
"believe in" (in the scientist modest way of self-interrogation) in the
*object* of his theory. Most naturalist "believe in" a physical
universe, or a nature or whatever.
We wouldn't discuss about a "theory of everything" if we were not
believing in ... something.
Religious faith differs from ordinary belief and scientific
hypothesizing not only by the lack of evidence but even more in the
assertion of certainity.
I think everyone has religious faith. Today, a scientist who pretends
no doing philosophy or theology, is just a scientist taking for granted
Aristotle theology. No problem in case he is aware of the fact, so
that, as a scientist, he can still be open to the idea that Aristotle
theology can be falsified, but if he is not aware of the fact, then he
will not been able to make sense of the data---a little like Roland
Omnes who concludes his analysis of QM that there is a point where we
need to abandon faith in ... reason. Personally, I consider that
abandoning faith in reason in front of difficulties, is just worse that
abandoning faith in truth (whatever it is).