Hear, hear, said the unashamed dictionary definition mystic.

Feelings, or intuitions are more often right than wrong, because if they were not, we wouldn't have evolved as we have. Most of our thinking is done by informed intuition rather than with critical reasoning. Homo sapiens is woefully deficient in reasoning skills. There simply isn't enough time to apply critical thinking to all or even most of our decisions. A man would be paralyzed (and probably dead) to attempt it. All we can really argue is that reason yields a higher percentage of truthful conclusions versus intuition/emotional thinking. But the two thinking systems work in tandem much of the time.

I will say that this is one of the most interesting threads on Galt's Gulch, for me, and I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of our collective ongoing discussions.

I base my support for capitalism on anecdotal historical observations. Capitalism is the economic system that has provided the opportunity to raise more people out of poverty and dependence than any other in our history, As it is also the system that seems to provide the individual more influence in his own financial success there is an inherent bonus. Y'all can all pile on if my assumptions are incorrect or my conclusions or if somehow this is based on faith not observation and research.

HERB7734,
Why the debate. you are either a person who has religious beliefs or not. If one has religious beliefs why would you want to discuss "reason" in this context with them. N.B. is correct!

Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. Ambrose Bierce

I seem to keep repeating the obvious.Man recognized that he needed rules in order to survive. Loaded with unasnswered questions, he made up stories in order to explain the universe and why we need to act in certain ways in order to survive. The only thing that will enforce the rules is fear of death. They promise paradise to those who obey and horrendous torture to those who don't. So, ask yourself this; If a good person who obeys the rules lives in fear of death, why does he? Because he knows that fairy tales don't make it so.But would never consciously say out loud these most buried thoughts. Yes, there are true believers. There is no end to the variations of heavenly afterlife.

OK
The question is whether to use faith or reason in order to solve a problem.In other words which faculty would you rather have in order to solve a problem?

Since this has led to a somewhat contentious debate, let me ad the following: "Man's value judgements are not inate. Having no inate knowledge of what is true and what is false, man can have no knowledge of what is good and what is evil,his values and his emotions are the product of conclusions he has drawn or accepted that is:of his basic premises.
Reason and emotion - thinking and feeling - are not contradictory or mutually inimical faculties but their functions are not interchangeable emotions are not tools of cognition.What one feels feels in regard to any fact or issue is irrelevant..It is not by means of one's feelings that one perceives reality. whether one's judgement of it is true or false."

We have reached a position that will convince neither of us as to the other. From this point forward I'm wasting time. At my age, I don't have all that much time left to wast. so From this point on, I'll just say ditto .

While I consider our argument(s) to be fun, I'll take option 4: your defense of faith while well thought out and proof that this is not your first time to the rodeo,
is neither rational nor usable .

My reverse opinion exactly. However, I detect a stymie in which neither of us will convince the other and to my utter amazement, most Gulchers remain silent. Perhaps too Much green beer?

The ultimate proof is : when working a scientific equation or physical experiment, you use faith, and I'll use reason.I say that 1+1=2, you say 1+1=? the result difference would be stymied in your case and usable in mine.

Which is?

Hair splitting. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, etc.a long time of the "duck proof" . I think it would be safe to use the duck hypothesis in order to take the next step of actually proving duck-ness.

The Higgs Boson is a good example of faith. However, there's a good deal of speculation involved which makes the existence of the bosun uselessas as reality in terms of repeatable experiments. The fact that you require such esoteric examples causes me to suspect the reality of the "god" particle.

Expecting the sun to rise is not faith.That is, if we are talking about modern man Experience tells us that since multiple persons have seen it happen multiple times, it is not irrational to continue to expect it.Also, repeatable observation of natural phenomena could be deemed evidence.

Here's my first shot at a better definition for faith. Take it for what it is worth - even if it's nothing. ;)

Faith is the principle by which I act in anticipation of a desired result without knowing beforehand the outcome. (Knowing in this case being used to indicate a positive knowledge based on past experience or evidence.)

Example: it is not faith to expect the sun to rise every morning because past experience tells us it will. It would be faith to conduct an experiment to confirm the existence of the Higgs boson just as it would be faith to enter an entrepreneurial business venture.

He knew the processes, but until one has applied them, it is hypothesis - not conclusion. Until he actually built the bridge and crossed it, there was no fact involved as to whether or not it would bear the weight. His study and familiarity concluded that it was likely, but only the actual test provided proof.

I agree, which is why I challenge his definition in the first place as a straw man.

If one is going to use a definition of faith that has been accepted for "hundreds of years", here's one from the Bible (quick search so may not be the best one) found in Hebrews 11 (New Testament) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." That seems to say that faith is a hope in things yet to be proved. That's a far cry from the use by the author here, but very much in line with what I conjecture and fully in line with the examples I have provided. If you want to offer another authoritative source for a definition, please do.

I can't accept the definition as used by Branden because in my view it is inherently flawed as a straw man. If one accepts it, one accepts everything that follows.

I should have, meant to, add, “...while debating.”

When you push to deconstruct and reconstruct words and their basic concepts that have been used for the last hundreds of years, you lose the original meaning. Words begin to mean what ever you want them to mean. You lose the ability to learn from the documented lessons of history. You create anti-concepts. This is doubleplus ungood! Very 1984ish.

Mine is an objectivist definition A word doesn't have to be agreed upon. It only needs to be true. To agree to a word that doesn't correspond to reality will get you nowhere.. Even dictionaries are not always precise and can be improved upon.

Rearden knew the component part, of his steel, how it was created and tested so he was operating with undisputed facts. No faith involved.