Faith, like God, has a different meanings for each person. As such, it is impossible to agree on “collective” definitions.

Again, it is the reliance on Branden's definition of faith that creates the confusion. If one uses the definition I have proffered - or the one found by cursory search from the Bible - one finds that faith and trust are nearly identical. Again - my contention is that the definition being used by Branden is a straw man and fundamentally flawed. Thus ANY and ALL conclusions based on such a definition are (by extension) fatally flawed.

To make it simple: one acts on faith UNTIL conclusive evidence is found - one way or the other. I don't disagree that Hank Reardon's understanding of his metal's capabilities made him more confident of success, it does not change the fact that until the train passed over the bridge, he had no proof - only conjecture supported by his calculations.

Now, if one wants to contend that Dagny's plunge through the barrier required significantly more faith than Reardon's bridge, I would completely agree because the degree of uncertainty was higher. It doesn't change the fact that in neither instance was the outcome guaranteed before the test was taken. The proof was obtained in the testing and not a moment before. As logic requires proof or confirmation, one can not logically conclude the bridge would hold or that there was an invisible barrier until after the trial of faith.

No, the existence of the Higgs' boson is a hypothesis - not faith. Faith would be the scientist postulating the existence and then going to all the work to obtain the funding and set up the experiment. Whether or not the experiment confirmed or denied the existence, the sheer fact that the test was conducted was the "faith" portion of the experiment.

Again, you are using "faith" as if it is a competitor to logic - not a motivational force, which is why to you this argument appears absurd. Until you are willing to look at the argument without basing your reasoning on the Branden definition, you are caught in the very logical procession I have already admitted is a completely rational exposition based on that definition. If you look at things from the perspective of a substantially different definition of faith, the entire chain of reasoning changes and so do the rational conclusions. That is the entire crux of my argument.

Its a false conundrum. One doesn't use "faith" to solve a problem. One identifies a problem then is motivated (by faith) to find a solution. Faith does not replace logic. It simply tips the scale of value in favor of seeking out a solution or testing a hypothesis.

I completely agree.

There is more to perception than seeing. Your argument doesn't hold true for a blind person any more than it holds true for a deaf person, etc. Do not make the mistake of artificially constraining the test mechanism to confirm a bias.

Put another way:
If I - as a parent - tell my three-year-old not to stick a knife in the power outlet because it will hurt him, does my son have to stick the knife in the power outlet just to find out what I tell him is true? Just because one person has not personally perceived something does not mean that someone else has not. Does that make the principle any less true simply because I have not personally tested it? No.

Did the planets exist before they were observed and identified by astronomers? Yes. But how many people take it for granted that Neptune exists even though they have never personally observed it through a telescope? You can apply that principle ad infinitum. We believe what other people say all the time. Do we take the time to question and confirm every single little thing? No. Does that mean that we are fools for acting on the belief that what others' say or do is not actually fallacy? Surely not.

It's a ridiculous hypothetical. Again, you are using faith in the way you want to use it, which I contend is a straw man. Used in its proper form as "motivation to find an answer", faith and logic work hand in hand - not at odds with each other.

Actually, according to any standard of objectivity - especially the creed of the Objectivist - there MUST be proof. Without proof, all you have is belief. The scientific method does not stop at hypothesis and then declare that they can skip the testing portion and just make it a theory or law! It demands the proof of the actual test and can not be satisfied without it. It is not splitting hairs at all.

For example, by using your very same argument, one can absolutely argue for a belief in the giant floating spaghetti monster (an actual religion) because you are not requiring any proof.

We'll agree to disagree, then. That's fine. You asked the question, I debated it.

Perhaps the energy and drive to succeed, as well?

Something to be said of the 'Good Books'.

Once people gained the ability to have a christian or Jewish bible of their own, reading it actually gave them an education not just in, language, daily behavior but in a host of other subjects.
For many during those times, that's all they needed to be successful.

Calculated risk is not faith.

He was amazed that when he visited Israel he could understand and converse with the locals. Only his version was the 14th century syntax and accent.

Wow...that is quite a feat.
Foreign languages confound me but I did try to remember a few Swedish words...don't even ask me to spell them...have enough trouble with English...laughing

My communication with my father never went that deep.He feared words that he didn't understand. However, he memorized the Jewish prayer book -- in Hebrew no less.

My best defence was false bravado. I'd stand right up to them even if I was trembling with fear. Somehow, they almost always backed down. In one case, as the years passed, one of the bullies, not wanting to put up with my mouth met me after class. A few years later he became a lawyer on the Detroit police force. After quitting the police, he became my lawyer and a world-class joker.

In high school, I chummed around with a guy who looked mean and was several inches taller than me, thinking that would help.

One night, a group of 3 local bullies approached us and I resolved to duke it out with my buddy by my side. Unfortunately, when I looked behind me, my buddy was high-tailing it, in the opposite direction. I figured 3 against 1 was going to end badly, so I followed suit...

A couple years later, I joined the Marine Corps and haven't had any problems, since.

Thanks Exceller,
Good point . I love your moniker!

So how did you get so integrated, Herb?

My dad was always a republican, he got most of his important open minded news from from the Christian Science publishing house inwhich his older sister worked for 50 plus years.
Actually the political articles were quite good and non biased.

When ever my brain slowed down enough and I had a deep question or idea...he would always say: Write it down...He never got to see the day I actually "wrote it down" Nor did he get to see the Red Soxs win the pennant either but I did... in his honor.

Food is a major item as far as cost goes. However, Won't it take away the please of eating? Of tasting a delicious thing?Physical pleasure is incentive enough in many cases of the desire to create better better physical sensation.It's hard to imgine how someone tasting a very sweet thing for the first time. It might be as addictive as poppies.

And the alternative is...? To date there is none. When humans encounter something that is inelegant and messy, but works (capitalism) we go,with it. But in such cases, the alternative is that there may be something about ourselves that we can change that will make us better able to construct a better system.

You may be wrong.

I agree 100%.
The discoveries of what the universe is, is yet to occur. It may come as a cooperative venture or as a flash of insight ala Einsteinian thought experiments.It might require either or both physical and mental abilities that we don't have at present, but may acquire them in an altogether different way than we can imagine today..
"VE shall see" -- Gandpa Sherman..

Things can exist without our ability to comprehend them either via our senses are inadequate or we have yet to discover the scientific proof.

With science, all knowledge is possible. But it is not free. It requires work, effort and the willingness to devote time to find answers.