LuccaCardoso1 said:
For religion, sure, hard proof is not necessary at all. After all, faith is only required when you don't have proof. When you have proof, you don't need faith anymore. But for scientific knowledge, yeah, a hard proof is needed (or at least many pieces of evidence that point to a thing being the most plausible).
Yeah, they start as hypotheses. Then they're tested enough times and put against enough contrary ideas for them to become theories. No scientific principles stand only on speculation without testing and experimenting. |
The fact that these hypotheses are tested over and over is what makes them valid. They remain however, inductive reasoning, meaning they could always be wrong (but since they have been succesful in the past, we don't have any reason to mistrust them unless we encounter aromalies). As for faith. You only technically need faith, but ideally, you still have supporting grounds for that faith (usually metaphysically).