Bah, i'm sitting here listening to a person next to me talk about how wikipedia is a reliable source and souldn't be "banned" from science papers in k-12. Whats his argument for this? because wikipedia is often quite correct on some things. If i were less shy i would confront the ignorant person i am talking about. I swear the um ignorance maybe? of some people overwhelms me quite often.

ok i just had to get that off my chest

I am probably going to far with this thread but it's been really iterateing for me as of late. What really sparked this was somethings I've heard in my class and read in my book. In class people use faith in the trust way all the time, i personally think it should be just uses as a religious term. We have a perfectly good word for what they mean and it's trust. This cannot be misconstrued to mean religous faith at all it means what it says trust. Inside the book with in the same paragraph it talks about trusting one's self =faith and having belief without evidence =faith. This seems to me to be a very ambious way of using the terms when we have a way of differeanting them as i said above.