Sam Harris's reply to Paul C. Davies's editorial :

[Rainy Weather]

Sam Harris's reply to Paul C. Davies's editorial :

(1) I have long thought that someone should perpetrate a Sokal-style hoax on the New York Times opinion page—a page which has become, under the careful stewardship of David Shipley, a stronghold of pseudoscience, preening relativism, and religious apology. Paul C. Davies’ recent op-ed, “Taking Science on Faith,” would have been a magnificent hoax text, and I am genuinely ashamed that I wasn’t clever enough to write it myself.

(2) By equivocating on the meaning of the term “faith,” Davies manages to obliterate every useful distinction between scientific empiricism and intellectual honesty on the one hand and religious superstition and self-deception on the other.

(3) Regrettably, I do not think Davies intended his essay to be a hoax, and the New York Times seems unlikely to learn that is has pandered, yet again, to the least discerning of its readers with another piece of rank obscurantism.

(1) Is simply an appeal to ridicule.

(2) is actually a negative argument Sam makes. Pity he doesn't explain what are the different meanings Davies uses, when he uses "faith".

(3) Is again an appeal to ridicule.

Did I miss something?

[Cuddles]

Did I miss something?

I don't know. What are you talking about?

[Mulder]

He's referring to: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/op...ewanted=1&_r=1

The most contentious part of Davies article is probably this bit:

"Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence."

There is an interesting reply at:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...-on-faith.html

[Jocky]

Hi RW, and welcome to UKS

(2) is actually a negative argument Sam makes. Pity he doesn't explain what are the different meanings Davies uses, when he uses "faith"

Allow me to elucidate: this is the equivocation of which Davies is guilty:

Faith
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing

2. belief that is not based on proof

source

It is a valid criticism to point out this equivocation. Davies bases his argument on the imputation that science relies on 'faith' in supra-natural laws in the second sense. In fact it does not - it relies on evidence, a point which Davies does not address.

Scientists could be said to have 'faith' in their evidence in the first sense - after it has been peer reviewed, that is. This is a different matter.

Did I miss something?

Yes. Davies says:

to be a scientist ... You’ve got to believe that these laws won’t fail, that we won’t wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour.

This is incorrect. Scientists observe that physical laws operate. Whether (or not) they believe in them is immaterial - it is the evidence which matters.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I just started reading "End Of Faith" on the plane tonight. Not read too far yet, but I like his style. Am looking forward to delving further into the Op on this thread.