(December 23, 2011 at 7:08 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The "line of proof" had nothing to do with science all of a sudden. That's an issue with the questions you asked and nothing more. It didn't have anything to do with science when you opened either.
I'd have to say it is it's own field. It has very specific rules and practices, it is designed for a very specific purpose. I would also say it deserves it's own little "field" due to it being the greatest single contributor to our well-being and knowledge.
Scientific assertions verified by evidence determine the most likely explanation of observed phenomena with a considerable amount of provisional certainty. Science and scientific assertions make no further claims. It is not the search for "truth" in any sense but the poetic. It is the business of attempting to explain the unknown (or better explain what is known).
I don't think you're recognizing the scale of reason and logic. Can science conduct an illogical or unreasonable experiment? Perhaps. Do the results of that experiment hold any weight within the field of science? No. I am not down playing the usefulness or efficiency of science. I am simply stating that it is in-fact contained within a much larger field.
If we can agree that science does not determine truth (in any sense other than that which pertains to our current understanding), then I feel we can agree on your definition of scientific assertions verified by evidence and what they determine. The only problem arises when science begins to attempt to determine truths by stating that it has falsified a claim outside of science (axiom). Science needs to realize its limit, which is effectively the knowledge of the current time.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
