Re: "Well beast that is an einstein quote that you tore apart"
Let's start with the fact that I didn't tear anything apart. I have some doubts concerning the source you claim and I presented those doubts. Here is where some evidence to support your claim would be both welcome and helpful to you. As is, it appears you're simply asking that I have faith that what you say is true, despite the fact that I already doubt the validity of the suggestion and can find no evidence on the web to support your assertion.
I did present quotations which are well documented to be attributable to Einstein and which show his intended implications.
---
Re: "and science is faith based."
I wouldn't say that it's not uncommon for those who are suspicious of the findings of science to make such a statement. But the statement only exposes a clear misunderstanding about what science is, how it operates and what it does and does not produce. So perhaps it's not a bad idea to offer some clarification. And I'll be happy to provide references to confirm what I present.
The primary key to science is to always follow the evidence to a conclusion and never to seek out evidence in an attempt to support a pre-conceived conclusion. Many people get so caught up in the tools of science that they begin to think that if test tubes, oscilloscopes, telescopes, sensory equipment and evidence is involved, then it's automatically science. But the key to science is always objectivity and the exclusion of subjectivity in examining objective evidence. And the reason for that is very simple, very well established and very clearly demonstrated through many different channels, avenues and examples. Where subjectivity is allowed, multiple conclusions, many of which do not comply with the pertinent objective evidence, are the finding produced. Religion is a prime example.
In following the scientific method, one should start with a question or an observation. They then seek ALL pertinent objective evidence. The evidence is objectively analyzed and followed to a conclusion. Anytime one instead seeks out evidence in pursuit of a pre-conceived conclusion, what they're doing is not science. It doesn't matter if they're trained in a field of science. It doesn't matter if they utilize DNA sequencers, test tubs, oscilloscopes, gas chromatographs, electromagnetic spectrum analyzers, computers, microscopes, tunneling electron microscopes, space telescopes or any of the other equipment commonly associated with science. If they're not following the evidence to their conclusions, what they're doing isn't science. Science is a methodology, not a set of tools nor a group of equipment.
Technically speaking, if your car won't start, leading you to check your fuel, then track the flow of fuel to the engine and into the combustion chamber, then begin following the ignition system to assure that a spark is yielded in the combustion chamber, you're following the scientific method. And yet most would see this as being a mechanic, rather than being a scientist. But both mechanics and scientists should be attempting to utilize objective methodologies to seek the most likely conclusion based on the evidence.
If fuel is found in the gas tank but isn't present at the carburetor or injector nozzles, one has found evidence which would explain why the engine will not start. If, on the other hand, one finds there is no spark but instead chooses to flush out the fuel line because they have bet another mechanic that it's a fuel problem, they're pursuing a pre-conceived conclusion and the process they're following is a deviation from the scientific method.
As a more detailed description of how science operates; one starts with a question or observation. One then pursues evidence and applies objective observations and/or experimentation on the evidence. When one finds what appears to be the most likely conclusion, they submit a fully detailed report explaining their observations, their evidence, the procedures followed utilizing that evidence and their conclusion. This is known as a "hypothesis". But in order to be accepted, it will need to be elevated to the level of "theory". And no one can elevate their own conclusion to the level of theory, nor can any single person dub a hypothesis, "theory".
To become a theory the hypothesis is submitted for peer review. In this sense "peer" does not mean a group of one's friends, but a group of scientists, each of whom will take on the task of attempting to demonstrate that any piece of evidence lies contrary to the findings presented in the hypothesis. Each stands to win recognition and greater monetary worth by showing the hypothesis to be refuted by any of the evidence. Any claim submitted strictly on faith is instantly shot down. If a concept is not thoroughly supported by the existing evidence or refuted by any single piece of objective evidence, the concept fails.
Any scientist who repeatedly submits flawed hypotheses will see his reputation quickly fade. Even Einstein, in submitting his final hypothesis, was soundly refuted via peer review and considered to be lacking in credibility. Einstein became so convinced that there was a collective structure and methodology to the universe (which he called "God"), and that he understood the methodology of this supposed God, that he began to dismiss both quantum theory and segments of his own theory of relativity in pursuit of his idea that God would have kept the workings of the universe relatively simple. This lead to his debates with another physicist, Niels Bohr and it is from these debates that another of Einstein's famous quotes is extracted; "God, does not play dice with the universe."
Bohr countered with, "stop telling God what to do with his dice".
But the point remains that when Einstein presented a hypothesis which failed to comply with the evidence which supported both quantum mechanics and his own theory of relativity, yet didn't provide new evidence to support his assertions, his work was shot down as quickly as it would have been had it come from a 7th grade 4-H student. And that's why science produces truths, while faith-based practices yield only a steady stream of often well-refuted claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html
Science simply does not accept anything on faith. It requires objective evidence and adherence
to objective practices.
---
Re: "for if formulas or theories based on the belief of the scientist that things could happen and why."
Formulas are the one place where proofs do come into play. But if a formula fails to reproduce the conclusions originally drawn, the hypothesis fails and will not become theory. You wrongly turn to the "belief of the scientist". It is not what a scientist believes that is important. He can publish papers, findings and hypotheses continually to present anything he believes. But anything he cannot demonstrate to be true, will quickly be tested and if it fails those tests, his hypotheses will fail. Theories are not based on the "beliefs of the scientist". They are based upon the reproducible conclusions derived from the objective analysis of objective evidence.
---
Re: "if things are not thought possible on belief or faith, than why would scientist go to such length as to proof or diproof claims of others."
If science does not consider something to be possible, it's because the evidence shows it not to be possible, not because a scientist woke up one morning, scratched an itch, spit into the sink and formed an opinion based on a whim. You might like to think this is how science reaches it's conclusions, but there is no validity to such an assumption. The first thing any proposition of any scientist will meet are the hungry eyes of other scientists reaching for the recognition which will come only at demonstrating the findings of another scientist as being incorrect. And when they find another scientist's work to be refuted by evidence, their findings too will be subjected to review by still other scientists. It's a system which continually checks itself and offers great reward for the discovery of any mistake or unsupportable claim.
It is the exact opposite of faith.
Nothing in science is accepted on faith. Everything must be supported not just by some evidence, but by all of the available objective evidence, or it's found to be in error.
If you still think you have a point, then why not make that point? Present anything currently accepted by science today for which there is no confirming evidence or any refuting objective evidence.
