Quote:
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...".
|
I don't know what you mean by "truth" above. And no one I know looks to science for all the answers. Just answers regarding how the physical world works. And that's enough for me.
Quote:
|
Science is the recognition that observations tend to be reliably consistent,...
|
No. That is not a recognition of science, that is in fact the axiom of the scientific method.
Quote:
|
... 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.
|
No, science doesn't care if certain people's observations seem consistent. It cares whether many independent observers doing the same experiment get similar results.