Atheists say the same, but apparently better understand that logical absolutes, whether positively or negatively asserted, simply don't apply to nature. Both still lack belief in gods regardless of how one attempts to twist the question. It makes sense to lack belief in anything completely unsupported by evidence. Believing in things unsupported by evidence is irrational.
Atheists deny the existence of gods they don't say that gods might exist the say gods do not exist.
I agree. However your reference is about why people became scientists. I was talking about the way the scientists feel about a different specialty. Personally when I read about, for example, the discovery of the Higgs boson, I did not have faith that it was valid, but I did trust that the research was well done.I still say it's neither.
Other than in "Pew Charitable Trust" neither "trust" nor "faith" are mentioned.
As the need for highly trained scientists grows, a look at why people choose these careers
What leads people to a career in science? From a lifelong interest in science to the influence of mentors, working scientists explain why they pursued science.www.pewresearch.org
That's not totally true. Many believed that Fermat's Last Theorem was true when it was unsupported. That is why there was such an effort to prove it. Of course now it is supported. The same with the Higgs Boson.
Such theories generally spring from prior experience (knowledge) (evidence). Neither Fermat nor Higgs sprang from a vacuum (puns always intended). Gods evidently spring from nothing but lack of knowledge. Thus faith. Also,
I think we are in the quibbling zone. The concept of Fermat's last theorem was always conjecture until it wasn't.
Wrong again. You've just been refusing to take Fermat's word for it.
Try keeping in mind that "Laws" (as opposed to proofs) are made to be broken. Certainly physics involves using lots of math (mathematical logic) which utilizes proofs. Still, physics remains a scientific discipline. So ya gotta keep 'em separated! (logically speaking or you're just kidding yourself -- don't kid yourself!)
.
.
Some people do have faith in science. No real scientist would answer evolution to the question of the origin of life, but I'm not talking about scientists.
Nobody did. Many call it Fermat's conjecture. The math at his time wasn't mature enough for the long proof made a few years ago. Did he have a shorter more elegant proof? It will remain conjecture until somebody proves it using the math that Fermat was familiar with or could have soon known
Yes, that's obvious to every one who knows anything about physics. Keeping it separated is called experimental vs. theoretical physics.
Believing evolution or not -- there is a lot of misunderstanding. What else is new.
OMG, just look at that cicada nymph molt into its adult form!
Must be magic or something!
Ruh roh, looks like that dumb snake's gotten itself stuck in its own shed skin!
.
You're certainly entitled to your own beliefs. But you know, at least I quoted other sources for backup. Just saying..
Decades ago I took a course in number theory and have since been fascinated with prime numbers, Gödel's Theorem, Fermat's conjecture, etc. My post was from memory. I also remember that it was not Fermat's final theorem chronologically. Fermat's had a number of theorems in notes that were rather terse, and some proofs omitted. It was named "last" because it was the last of his theorems to be proven by later mathematicians. The proof a few years ago was over 100 pages long (i think) and involved different areas of mathematics that were unexpectedly found to be isomorphic (sort of equivalent).Dream on there, Breezy.. and here I thought you might be grateful for that new, improved image
You're certainly entitled to your own beliefs. But you know, at least I quoted other sources for backup. Just saying..
Seems to me that if Fermat's peers could prove it, some likely would have thought it up themselves and proven it. He may have just been way ahead of his time. Being officially called "Fermat's Last Theorem" indicates that he probably just died before he could formally publish both his theorem and the proof.
