At Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:48:28 -0800, you wrote:
>
>TheHermit wrote:
>
>>There is nothing fundamentally wrong from postulating that the universe is
>a
>>strange, unknown and unknowable environment except in our immediate
>>vicinity. We can then analyse the environment in our immediate vicinity and
>>develop a rational system to describe our immediate environment. We can
>then
>>make the inductive step that all of the universe works the same way as our
>>localised model. As and when we discover phenomena which confute our
>>hypothesis, we simply modify our model of the localised universe to bring
>it
>>into alignment with this new information. As anyone with a smattering of
>>exposure to science will recognise, this is the very basis of the
>scientific
>>method. As anyone with a slight exposure to the philosophy of science will
>>recognise, this is the basis of the philosophy of science. As anyone with
>>common sense will recognise, this does not take "faith".
>
>What is the difference between an "inductive step" and a "leap of faith"?
>The style of the gait or the length of the stride?
>
>-Prof. Tim
Leaps of faith lack evidentiary springboards.
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher