I wrote the following in response to Stanley Fish's second column on faith and reason.
They closed comments while I was writing it, so I'm posting it here.
_____
It might be said that the contrast between faith and science is that faith presupposes that one is right, while science presupposes that one is wrong. The analysis presented by Prof. Fish tells us that the suppositions of science are built on assumptions inherited as "fact" from previous endeavors. Does the humble doubt of the "knowing" faithful parallel the careful hypothesis testing of the critical scientist in this regard?
I think there is a naive view, however, in limiting the discussion to one person making one observation at a time. Ten scientists can repeat the same experiment in ten places at ten times and get the same answer every time. Facts can exist, even without an observer to attest to them, as the fact is waiting to be observed (gravity is waiting for you at the bottom of the ocean). Independent verification is a powerful antidote to having to accept anything from anyone in the form of assumption. If I understand one of the undercurrents of Prof. Fish's descriptions of faith, the pervasive human belief in God and faith can be also viewed as an experiment performed in parallel over many centuries, thus taking on a greater dimensionality than simple singular belief.
I did not expect to state this, but perhaps he is right that science and faith do have more in common than they don't.
Posts
