Originally Posted by Rotaerk

It is true. When you look to anything to provide all the answers, you have taken a leap of faith, i.e. ignored logic. Science is not the source of all truth. Science only exists within the context of philosophy, from which it gains its value. It never has been a source of truth, only facts (observable phenomena) and explanations. Even facts aren't necessarily true, unless preceded with "I have observed that...". In this case, they are true, but only to the observer. Sharing facts with others then adds to the complexity of the claim: "I observed him claiming that he observed that...".

Science is the recognition that observations tend to be reliably consistent, and that certain people's claims also tend to be consistent (these are called "trustworthy"... and perhaps "sane"). It follows that one can model these observed patterns and make predictions. If any predictions turn out incorrect, that means the model of the patterns was not complete, and thus should be revised. Hence, the scientific method, which is itself only a formalization of the concept of science.

Originally Posted by votetheoneyouhatetheleast

I'm an independent for one thing not a liberal. Just because I think Bush is an incompetent leader doesn't make me liberal, doesn't even exclude me from being republican, I choose to weigh up his actions and determine my own opinion, over blind party loyalty.