Adrian and I disagree on faith.

[leo-rcc]

It would be a red herring if leo was deliberately trying to divert from the subject. He clearly isn't. He is elaborating on what we can know. That's totally on subject. The inability you show to grasp what he is saying does not amount to him raising another subject.

Yes, but he's arguing that there is a limit to our knowledge therefore we need faith to plug those gaps, that's not an effect method to resolve our lack of understanding.

In order to move forward we do sometimes need to take some things as faith and if and when our understanding of a given subject increases we might find a better way of explaining these things. That is the nature of the game. We couldn't explain lightening properly, and when we got a better understanding of electricity, the hypothesis that lightening is a very powerful electrical discharge was formed and later on through experimentation found to be accurate.

I'm not prepared to forfeit relevant information for blind hope or halt our on-going learning process just because someone states "But you can't know for sure".

Show me anywhere in this thread where I did anything like that? Since when have I argued for blind hope? All I am arguing, as I have stated from the very beginning, is that past experiences are not evidence for future events. All you can do with them is make educated guesses. How much faith is required is solely dependent on the subject matter.

As I understand leo, nothing of this is refuted by him. The point is that 'to the best of our knowledge' does not necessarily equal 'truth'. About truth we should be precise. We should be careful to not overstate the claim. Leo is just being careful and precise.

I never said models dictate reality because I don't stupidly overstate or generalise up some authoritative circular argument such as 'our knowledge is truth because we defined knowledge'.

Neither have I. So what is your problem?

Would you rather us simply have no predictive theories to rely upon at all?

Now that is a Red Herring. I've never argued that, not even implied that.

Faith on the other hand can't even hope to provide us with any answers to discern what is probable from the improbable (bad pun no?).

I never claimed it did.

I fail to see how confidence in something improbable or unlikely being true (faith) is the answer to philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge.

I don't either because that is not how I defined faith, if you ever bothered to look.