Wikipedia has gone whacky!!!!

[RGD]

I found this on Wikipedia's definition of the word "faith":

Noun
faith (uncountable except as indicated; plural faiths)

Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without evidence supporting the claim, and often in spite of evidence to the contrary.
"I have faith in the scientific method."
(Christian theology) Belief and trust in God's promises revealed through Christ and the Scriptures.
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (Hebrews 11:1) (emphasis added)

Did anyone really read what they wrote? Where on earth did a claim that the scientific method has 'evidence to the contrary' come from?

[Yggdrasill]

I don't see it as implying that the scientific method has evidence to the contrary, it's just as likely that they mean that the scientific method doesn't have evidence supporting it. (I can't say I disagree with the scientific method not having evidence supporting it; without using the scientific method, there is no way to support the scientific method with evidence, so you just have to assume it's correct.)

[RGD]

I don't see it as implying that the scientific method has evidence to the contrary, it's just as likely that they mean that the scientific method doesn't have evidence supporting it. (I can't say I disagree with the scientific method not having evidence supporting it; without using the scientific method, there is no way to support the scientific method with evidence, so you just have to assume it's correct.)

I'm not at all sure I agree; after all, the SM is nothing more than a process; you can certainly inspect the input and output to the process and note whether or not the results match the real world. So from that point of view, I'd say it's testable.

[Majestyk]

I think the use of "the scientific method" in the example is not to claim the scientific method does not have supporting evidence rather, to illustrate that faith can be applied to the validity of any subject. Whether the evidence exists or not is irrelevant. The issue is whether the person making the claim has the evidence to support it. If, not, then their acceptance of the subject's validity is a matter of, faith.

I have faith that no one goes thru life without exercising a little faith each day. (I accept it as a fact - without evidence)

I suspect that no one goes thru life without exercising a little faith each day. (I accept it as a probability - not enough evidence)

I know that no one goes thru life without exercising a little faith each day. (I accept it as a fact - I've seen the eveidence) <<<=== often mis-used in place of faith ]]]

[Corwin]

I found this on Wikipedia's definition of the word "faith":



Did anyone really read what they wrote? Where on earth did a claim that the scientific method has 'evidence to the contrary' come from?

It comes from the fact that anybody can edit and modify wiki entries.

This has been cited as a fundamental problem with wiki, and what you've posted is a classic example. (Politically and/or idealogically biased entries.)

[Yggdrasill]

I'm not at all sure I agree; after all, the SM is nothing more than a process; you can certainly inspect the input and output to the process and note whether or not the results match the real world. So from that point of view, I'd say it's testable.Yeah, but testing it and gathering evidence in support of it is using the scientific method, hence -> circular reasoning.

[Agemegos]

Where on earth did a claim that the scientific method has 'evidence to the contrary' come from?

It is a quote illustrating the usage of the word. Note the inverted commas.

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

faith has several meanings. The problem is that they have used a somewhat valid example sentence, but used it as an example for the wrong definition.

-B

[viscousmemories]

It's wiktionary.org, btw. Not wikipedia proper. And if you look at the editing history you can see it was "I have faith that the Loch Ness Monster exists" before someone changed it to "I have faith in the scientific method". And now it says "I have faith in the goodness of my fellow man." :D

[mirage]

Yeah, but testing it and gathering evidence in support of it is using the scientific method, hence -> circular reasoning.It depends what you have faith in the method to do.

If it is be useful and produce knowledge that corresponds to the world, then it is clear that there is an abundance of evidence.

What you seem to be objecting to is some sort of assumed absolute a priori correctness that I don't think is implied by the everyday language of the sentence.

Faith may not exclusively entail belief without evidence, but since that was the definition this sentence appeared under, I would call it misleading to say the least.

[mirage]

It's wiktionary.org, btw. Not wikipedia proper. And if you look at the editing history you can see it was "I have faith that the Loch Ness Monster exists" before someone changed it to "I have faith in the scientific method". And now it says "I have faith in the goodness of my fellow man." :D
Actually I changed it to the Loch Ness Monster and moments later someone changed it back. A little suspicious given that we were engaged in a thread appealing to this authority...but anyway, then RGD changed it again, unaware of my Loch Ness example.

[LeeBuhrul]

I found this on Wikipedia's definition of the word "faith":
...Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without evidence supporting the claim, and often in spite of evidence to the contrary. ...

Did anyone really read what they wrote? Where on earth did a claim that the scientific method has 'evidence to the contrary' come from?

They were defining "Faith" not "belief in God"... for instance is is very possible for the "faithful" to believe in "Miracles" such as a statues bleeding or crying or shadows and shapes having meanings in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary (in other words, scientific evidence for the real source of the "tears" or whatever).

The "Faithful" believe in creation although scientific evidence proves the world is much older...

[Yggdrasill]

It depends what you have faith in the method to do.

If it is be useful and produce knowledge that corresponds to the world, then it is clear that there is an abundance of evidence.But does the concept of evidence exist without first assuming the scientific method is correct? I say no, and because of that, supporting the scientific method with evidence is nonsensical, unless you first assume that the scientific method is correct. And as such, it is reasonable to say "I have faith in the scientific method", because the concept of evidence would be nonsensical without having faith (assuming without evidence) in the scientific method.

What you seem to be objecting to is some sort of assumed absolute a priori correctness that I don't think is implied by the everyday language of the sentence.I think it is implied.

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

But does the concept of evidence exist without first assuming the scientific method is correct?

I don't think this is correct. First, people were talking about evidence long before the scientific method was invented by Gallileo and Bacon. So it appears, historically, to have some meaning without the scientific method.

An evidentiary argument is just modus tollens by another name:

If the antecedent is false then the conclusion is false
The conclusion is true;
Therefore antecedent is true.

The "evidence" in this sense is the conclusion, which is known to be true.

The scientific method is just a particular attitude of saying we know antecedents if we can construct a logical structure that connect the antecedents with empirically observed facts. It differs from foundational empiricism (which says that we must deduce knowledge of the world from empirically observed facts) and foundational rationalism (which says that we must deduce knowledge of the world from "self-evident" premises).

We can construct an evidentiary argument for the scientific method itself, using, if not completely self-evident premises, at least premises that are uncontroversial:

If the scientific method were false we would be unable to construct predictive scientific theories
We are able to construct predictive scientific theories
Therefore the scientific method is true.

While this is not an ironclad logical argument (because there are always alternative premises of implication that entail the conclusion), it is, at least, an ordinary evidentiary argument.

Thus the scientific method is not accepted on "faith", that is without an evidentiary argument.

[viscousmemories]

But does the concept of evidence exist without first assuming the scientific method is correct? I say no, and because of that, supporting the scientific method with evidence is nonsensical, unless you first assume that the scientific method is correct.
This same issue arose in another recent discussion here about whether personal testimony can be called 'evidence'. It seems to me that in common usage (and this is supported by a couple of dictionaries I checked) calling something evidence means nothing more than it "indicates a particular conclusion or judgement". I think what you're defining is scientific evidence, but I really don't think that's the most commonly used meaning of the word outside the scientific community.

[Ahab]

It comes from the fact that anybody can edit and modify wiki entries.

This has been cited as a fundamental problem with wiki, and what you've posted is a classic example. (Politically and/or idealogically biased entries.)

At one time I foolishly accepted the articles on wiki as being basically accurate. :o That is until the members of a history-oriented board I frenqueted began posting all the errors they were finding in it. Probably best to confirm with another reference source any supposedly useful or new information one finds there. Personally, I've removed it from my favorites list and only go there to confirm a reference someone is making to wiki.

[Yggdrasill]

I don't think this is correct. First, people were talking about evidence long before the scientific method was invented by Gallileo and Bacon. So it appears, historically, to have some meaning without the scientific method.

An evidentiary argument is just modus tollens by another name:

If the antecedent is false then the conclusion is false
The conclusion is true;
Therefore antecedent is true.

The "evidence" in this sense is the conclusion, which is known to be true.

The scientific method is just a particular attitude of saying we know antecedents if we can construct a logical structure that connect the antecedents with empirically observed facts. It differs from foundational empiricism (which says that we must deduce knowledge of the world from empirically observed facts) and foundational rationalism (which says that we must deduce knowledge of the world from "self-evident" premises).

We can construct an evidentiary argument for the scientific method itself, using, if not completely self-evident premises, at least premises that are uncontroversial:

If the scientific method were false we would be unable to construct predictive scientific theories
We are able to construct predictive scientific theories
Therefore the scientific method is true.

While this is not an ironclad logical argument (because there are always alternative premises of implication that entail the conclusion), it is, at least, an ordinary evidentiary argument.

Thus the scientific method is not accepted on "faith", that is without an evidentiary argument.Okay, this is one way to look at it, but some probably still accept it on faith, so the example from wikipedia is not exactly wrong, only not as accurate as it can be.