Not according to Merriam-Webster.
MW describes faith, it does not challenge the basis, you do.. Your post assumes that all faiths are based on snake oil. But faith simply means (logic) the belief and trust and hope in medicine that does work. And the reason you have faith in it is because you know for a fact that it does work.
Fisherman - Facts do not trump other facts and that is the sophistry of your
argument assuming that faith is based on belief (not a talking horse)
and if the basis for faith can be invalidate with any new facts
There is enough context in my statement above for you to figure out what I mean. I made some changes to the structure of my sentences before I posted but they did not post through, so let me rephrase what is posted above:
Facts do not trump other facts. The sophistry of your
argument assumes that all faith is based on false belief or premise (not on a talking horse.) And that being the case, you also conclude that the basis for all faiths can be invalidated with evidence. My post intends to illustrate that faith must be based on fact in order for it for it to be defined as faith. Faith in a jackass or in snake oil is not faith because faith must only be based upon proof.
Every example of persons having faith in the Bible shows the person basing their faith -not on wishful thinking- but on a talking horse. Conclusion: No talking horse, no faith is possible. When faith based on evidence is the case (as it always must be), even new facts that come up, that contradict or seem to contradict exiting facts, do not invalidate the basis for faith, hence, if faith is based on evidence faith is not a fallacy and neither is it subject to new scientific facts or knowing any other facts .