Faith

[Cavernio]

Reincarnate: "Proof, or evidence, in this case would be anything that elevates the status of a claim such that it is not immediately dismissible." cry4eternity's words

Outside of the immediate emotional fulfillment and happiness that faith in something like a higher power gives, (and I think that emotional fulfillment/happiness is the only thing that matters, immediate or not, and so I think that anyones answer to cry4eternity of 'God makes me happy' should be enough for them to believe that faith is good, which makes the rest of my post pointless in terms of showing faith's usefulness), the way the OP has defined it, it is impossible to believe anything and not have some sort of faith. Regardless though, cry also strongly implies that positive proof exists for beliefs that does not rely on faith, and seems to be more where cry is actually drawing the line between faith and fact.

To add to rein and devonin's debate, there do exist phenomenon even in manufacturing that people don't understand, and that in turn ties into what reincarnate says everyday people can use as evidence for some scientific ideas.
An example I found fascinating when I heard of it is stained glass. Nowadays we know on a molecular level why certain color formulas work to make some colors, but we don't know for all of them. But that doesn't stop people from making those 'mystery' colors now, nor did it stop people from creating stains for glass centuries ago. And so to show that stained glass exists as proof of atomic structure is circular reasoning and is very unscientific; using the data that you used to make the theory as proof that the theory is correct doesn't prove anything except that you made a sound theory.(It does, however, seem to be a very common flaw that research has. My fav example? The idea that the root of depression is caused by neurotransmitter imbalances, like not enough serotonin. This is 'proven' because SSRI's like Prozac might help depressed people. But wait, the biggest, perhaps only 'proof' of this, are drugs like Prozac and other ways that specifically target serotonin. A lot of mind/brain research ends up being interpreted circuitously.)
This circular reasoning seems to be how reincarnate says the uninformed, non-specialist masses can base their beliefs in science by not relying on faith. Now I know I am being very particular here, because we often have multiple products that supposedly follow the same scientific principles. And we do trust that people don't merely use circular logic to explain things that someone just created; there's our own circular beliefs and the trust of experts that they don't just make things up, and every small thing adds up.

But it still seems to me that what reincarnate says is proof is still well-within cry4eternity's definition of faith, and is not fact. And yet I still think that believing in most things that people call science, even though I know I may have weak proof, is good.
Why?
I can only conclude it comes down to it being impossible not to, even with me considering cry's not-quite-stated 'stricter' definition of faith and fact. It's pretty impossible to not believe anything about something. Anything knowledge that I get, I must choose to believe if it's true, or false, or something in between. No matter how hard I try, I can't choose to ignore something. Even to choose to not believe in the existence of something, I still have to support that in some way or another. For instance, if I choose to not believe in the moon landing, I can either think 1) that the images of the moon landing I've seen have all been in my head, and so has any discussion around them, which is even more silly than arguing for solipsism because I now only some of the world is in my head (schizophrenia aside), or 2) that the images were faked, and then I have to come up with a bunch of reasons of why and how. And even if I choose to believe that the moon landing existed, because it's become such an oddly popular niche thing to not believe it, I not only have to believe it but I have to counter the arguments that it's fake. In every single case of what I think about the moon landing, no matter what choice I pick, I will not be able to prove everything. It's not so much a matter of choosing a faith or a fact based belief, but of choosing which belief best matches your ideas.

All fact/fiction arguing aside though, humans are social creatures, and being a cynic sucks, and being counter popular opinion sucks as well. We aren't simply computers figuring out the world, even if that's what you strive to be, even if you think that that's the best way to be. We're all subject to our upbringing and the knowledge and hot topics that exist around us. Science is still subject to popular ideas and what will get funding and what an individual scientist finds fascinating.

offtopic:
I usually use single quotes when I'm not using a very good word in order to make the meaning of it more ambiguous; either that or I want to use that word because it has further implications due to the topic being discussed than it usually would. Now I'm worried whenever I've done that it just comes off as sarcastic.
icecube: even if you're the smartest person in the world but you can't get someone else to understand you, it's still your job to make the receiver understand if you want your message conveyed. If you use "" and they have a meaning that no one can gleam, then that's an issue that you should fix, either by explaining specifically how you use them, or by finding another way to convey your meaning. Rambling posts are better accepted if they use standard punctuation and use lots of linking ideas. Tangential thoughts initiated by the topic aren't necessarily on-topic, and they will most definitely appear off-topic if they are not explained into the topic.