Can you give me an example or two to clarify? Many things might not be well known to someone, but could be if they wanted to track down that information. That's a little different than something which has to be taken on faith by everyone.
Well the scientific method is fundamentally faith based in that we assume that there are immutable properties of thebuniverse that can be discovered and that our perception allows us to interrogate these properties.
Yes this is a very well corroborated claim, but fundamentally faith based nonetheless.
Assuming that something is true for constructive reasoning purposes is not "faith-based", it is probabilistic. I don't have "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow but I assign it a high probability based on priors for the purposes of practical reasoning. We provisionally accept certain axioms because of their high utility but the axioms may be discarded at any time if the utility or correctness is in doubt. Non-axiomatic reasoning systems are a real thing, we use them in computer science.
This entire discussion is predicated on a minimalist set of mathematical axioms being valid, but there isn't even agreement on what that set of axioms is (though it may seem so to a layman). We still manage to get on in the world because we can do highly effective utilitarian reasoning without that being resolved.
The scientific method does not make that assumption. The scientific method only assumes/requires that doing the same thing exactly the same twice will produce the same results. Everything is built on top of that.
> that our perception allows us to interrogate these properties.
That's not about science, that's about logic. Anything that can interact with people can be detected and interrogated. It does not exclude the possibility that other things may exist but there is both no way for us to interact with those things and, as such, they have no relevance to our lives.
I look at it in a different way, like a game. Science is not a belief about the properties of the universe.
Rather, science is an inquiry into what can be learned about the universe under certain limiting assumptions. Like a game, it has certain rules, at least on a tentative basis.
To make an analogy, chess seeks to find out what kinds of tactics can defeat the enemy's King under assumptions about how the Queen can move, but does not imply a belief or faith about Queens.
Science doesn't preclude parallel games or fields of inquiry being played under different rules, such as the theologies of religions, perhaps political ideologies, literature, music, and so forth. Some people play multiple games at once. My parents were educated in theology, but became good scientists. I'm a scientist but also a musician.
In my view, the thing that makes science stick out is not its relationship to religion, but its success. I think that in the 17th century, scholars mostly assumed that science would peter out -- it would run into a brick wall, or merge with theology. That it has done neither of those things could not have been predicted at the time, and inspires a certain amount of awe today, as well as an attraction to curious minds.
> Yes, this is a very well corroborated claim, but fundamentally faith based nonetheless.
This is a really weird statement to me - what is the definition of faith that you are working from?
As someone who grew up in an evangelical environment, "faith" was the belief in God and his plans ("Have faith this will work out, God would only give you what you can handle." type of thing). Outside of that context I've generally understand it to mean "believing without evidence."
A well corroborated claim is the opposite of lacking in evidence and does not require belief in God. This sounds like you are conflating "belief" and "faith," which are not the same. I believe the sun is coming up tomorrow because the preponderance of evidence says it will, that does not require faith.
It's a little more insidious than that. The great majority of people will never personally replicate a finding. They will depend entirely on the honesty of/faith in the entire chain between scientist and messanger. it just turns out it mostly works.
Also the subject matter is in many cases very different, and even if someone doesn't understand the science behind something they can observe and see a tangible result.
The difference is that science, by nature, must produce testable hypotheses. I don't assume on faith that F=ma. I can make a prediction of what the force will be based on ma, and then conduct an experiment to see if that's true
I cannot test whether or not I will go to heaven after I die. This belief requires faith
