Bill said: "I just don't see any difference."
The confidence or trust in experts, both then and now, emanates from a
belief in the ambient wordview, then or now.
The ambient worldview has changed, and many 'facts' then have turned out
not to be empirical facts today, but merely philosophical/conceptual
'facts', as was/is the case with the Aristotelian earth-centred
worldview after a 1900 year hegemony.
Definitions of faith on the Web:
* religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that
control human destiny; * complete confidence in a person or plan
etc; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust" * religion:
an institution to express belief in a divine power; * loyalty or
allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith"; *
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, <billsm...@...> wrote:
> Thanks for discussing this with me.
> > I disagree that there is "...a world of difference..." between these
two sets of beliefs because of some qualitative difference between
"...beliefs based on superstition and scientific 'beliefs'."
You claim that scientific beliefs "...can be empirically tested with a
high degree of predictability/certainty, and the other [superstitions]
are "...based on nothing but faith (with mostly hit and miss results)."
> My point is that ALL of members of these two hypothetical juries are
accepting the testimony of the expert witness on faith alone.
> For example, NONE of the modern-day jurors have ever put the
scientific claims about DNA to any empirical test.
> They have FAITH that the expert witness and other scientists have. But
this is no difference than the medieval jurors who have FAITH that the
expert witness (priest) and other shamans have eclectic, gnostic or
spiritual knowledge that empowers them to be able to interpret the
entrails of a cat.
Yes, but I would say 'confidence' or 'trust'.
> I just don't see any difference.