I found the prose here a little too flowery to draw out much meaning. The intro did strike me as pretty questionable though:
> For the great majority of people, believing in the truths of science is unavoidably an act of faith.
I get the point that most people do not and will never fully understand the basis of most scientific facts. Only a very small percentage of the world has a complete grasp on the evidence for natural selection, climate change, the big bang, etc... . It reminds me of Mac's presentation in It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia where he asks whether Dennis has ever seen the fossil records, and follows up with
> Let me get this straight Mr Reynolds. You get your information from a book written by men you've never met. And you take their words as truth, based on a willingness to believe. A desire to accept. A leap of... dare I say it... faith?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjg0XlZ0Uv4
But there's a subtle difference between this and acts of faith: if science is conducted properly, it lays out in public the available objective evidence for its truths and invite anyone to come and investigate, and falsify the claims if they have sufficient evidence to the contrary. I could understand the basis for climate change if I took enough time out of work and family and did my research. With religious truths, on the other hand, investigations reach a dead end with "this is simply a matter of faith" or "you just have to feel this to believe it".
> For the great majority of people, believing in the truths of science is unavoidably an act of faith.
I get the point that most people do not and will never fully understand the basis of most scientific facts. Only a very small percentage of the world has a complete grasp on the evidence for natural selection, climate change, the big bang, etc... . It reminds me of Mac's presentation in It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia where he asks whether Dennis has ever seen the fossil records, and follows up with
> Let me get this straight Mr Reynolds. You get your information from a book written by men you've never met. And you take their words as truth, based on a willingness to believe. A desire to accept. A leap of... dare I say it... faith?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjg0XlZ0Uv4
But there's a subtle difference between this and acts of faith: if science is conducted properly, it lays out in public the available objective evidence for its truths and invite anyone to come and investigate, and falsify the claims if they have sufficient evidence to the contrary. I could understand the basis for climate change if I took enough time out of work and family and did my research. With religious truths, on the other hand, investigations reach a dead end with "this is simply a matter of faith" or "you just have to feel this to believe it".