Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

Planck’s quote is often misunderstood. “Faith” here doesn’t mean belief in the religious sense, but rather trust in methodological assumptions — like the consistency of natural laws and the usefulness of models. Science doesn’t rely on faith as justification; it relies on testable and revisable assumptions.

you are referring to the scientific method - much of so-called "science/scientific community" excludes the scientific method.

one has to have faith in order to believe they know what's going on a zillion light years away !!

Agreed. On most of that.
But scientists like other people - have philosophies and use them constantly.
Even if they don't call whatever 'philosophies'.
Are scientists 'normal'?
Normal - a very overworked word.

No, you have to have some scientific understanding, or at least to respect scientific understanding. You fail on both.

I respect science - I have little/no respect for "pseudoscience masquerading as science" !

Your assessment does not have a basis for reliability. This is why it is wrong. You believe nonsense, and fabricate absurd ways to continue being wrong.

we are just speaking "different languages" is all -

I try to keep things simple & easy to understand i.e. basic common sense(s)!

It feels like this discussion is mixing two different meanings of “faith.”

One is methodological trust in scientific assumptions, and the other is belief without evidence. If we don’t separate these, we end up talking past each other.

"trust in science" aka "trust the science" -- is referred to as Scientism - aka - a religion which requires faith !

You’re conflating trust in scientific methodology with scientism. They are not the same thing, and treating them as identical leads to a false conclusion.

exactly how would you separate the two ?- science/scientism are interconnected !

They are related, but not identical.

Science is a methodological framework for testing and refining models based on evidence. Scientism is a philosophical claim about the exclusive authority of that framework.

Connection does not imply equivalence.

so layman vs "the experts" - its "trusting the experts/science" that is referred to as scientism - no matter how thick the textbook(s) -

so really the only way to separate them is -- via "authority" ---- it would appear !

Hm scientific trust is based on a reproducible process, not simply deference to experts. Experts apply the method, but they are not the source of its validity. That’s why this is not scientism.

the scientific method gets its comeuppance all the time ! fixed land mass, life from a soup can, tabula rasa, etc. the list is sooo long. me ? ...i have gobs a skepticism for the SM but i also have some respect for it.

most ppl here arent smart enuf to u/s that the SM came OUTTA the "philosophy a science" ...not the other way around.

I actually agree with part of this. Modern science did historically emerge from natural philosophy. But I’d also say the scientific method became valuable precisely because it introduced systematic testing and self-correction beyond purely philosophical speculation.

"scientific trust is based on a reproducible process" -

not always!

“Not always” doesn’t negate the principle; it just shows that you’re using a very narrow definition of reproducibility.

And scientific reliability is based on broader reproducibility: independent confirmation, converging evidence, and consistency across methods.

but then i also closely watch my (and others) biorhythms ...which ppl laff at me for that. personally ? ...i bleeve theyre influencers.

science says nothing happens w/out a reason right ? ...not really convinced physical, emotional, intellectual wouldnt either via dw/dt (sine wave).