In message <[log in to unmask]>, Ted Ashton
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Thus it was written in the epistle of [log in to unmask],
>>
>> > All unifying ideas in science are theories, nothing is taken on faith, but
>> > as a theory, we have vastly more evidence and understand far more fully the
>> > processes and nature of evolution than we do for gravity.
>> Perhaps this is meant to be understood solely within the context of the
>> unifying ideas, but I find it impossible to proceed without givens,
>> presuppositions. Even Euclid's geometry has its first principles which are
>> just taken as true, and are not proven, nor can they be.
>
>Hear, hear!
>
>That little phrase "nothing is taken on faith" is the biggest falsehood that
>science has.  Please allow me to list a few things which *are* and *must be*
>taken on faith:
>
>there are others, I'm sure, but one more is worth mentioning:
>
A particularly tricky one is the problem of induction, whereby we assume
that because the laws of physics have applied up to this moment, they
will continue to apply.

There is no foundation whatsoever for this belief. On the other hand,
there is no sensible way to proceed except by believing it.

However, because I am still bothered by it, when I recall it from time
to time, I don't think I have 'taken it on faith' that the laws of
physics will continue to apply. For me, it's only a working hypothesis.

And it is, of course, quite literally a metaphysical issue.
--
Roy Brown        'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be
Kelmscott Ltd     useful, or believe to be beautiful'  William Morris