"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4baf96d7@news.povray.org...

> Argumentative religious people often seem to comment that science requires
> faith. Argumentative non-religious people say that's nonsense, since there
> is evidence.  I contend that there are at least two things most scientists
> take on faith, without supporting evidence:

> 1) That reality works substantially in accordance with measurements.

That doesn't need to be assumed to be a "truth". If operating under the
above assumption can be assumed to be better than the alternatives, that's
good enough. Subtle difference maybe, but one assumption is metaphysical,
the other pragmatic/operational.

Post a reply to this message