Home Forums FineTunedMac Community Lounge Unexplained Scientific Principles

I generally agree but the word "faith" makes me uneasy. When we say in papers "we believe" it does not imply that it is our faith, rather our understanding. This is why a lot of science people like the expression "working hypothesis, which implies that it mimics the real-life situation reasonably well but has room to be changed if new evidence is obtained. The original post was about "it is just as it is", which again is not about faith but about our total lack of understanding the phenomenon, whether we can describe it, measure, or create a model of it using math. Bottom line, I guess, we are all fairly correct and on the same ground.
Just one word of defense for John. When physicists describe some, say, new particle, as a prediction using a mathematical apparatus, and then discover it by experimentation, it is very easy to believe that the object obeys our reasoning and calculations. Most would say that the prediction was correct because we knew enough to make it, and the object is just still on its own, but we were able to model it correctly. This is one of the definitions of scientific discipline - whether it can make testable predictions. But it is so tempting to believe that if our model is advanced and accurate enough, the world may follow it by some higher law. Who knows?