(December 23, 2011 at 7:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Yes, unreasonable and illogical experiments are conducted all the time ( a huge gripe within the grant funded research community), and if they produced results they would have weight (they haven't yet).
I'm not looking to agree on a definition, the definition of what science is, what it does, and what it does not do is not an argument, or an area that can be negotiated. These aren't my definitions, they are the definitions.
Is that the trouble? Try inverting the objects in your statement. No axiom that makes a claim to reality or the material world is outside of science. Science cannot "realize it's limits" because we haven't found those limits yet. The limitations based upon available knowledge are not limitations of science, but limitations in our knowledge. Limitations or gaps, if you will, that are constantly being filled by guess what...science. Please don't insinuate that science should give way to the ramblings of it's predecessors when those predecessors failed to produce the results achieved by our current methods, and when many of the results of those predecessors were annihilated by the same.
What is needed for science to exist?
Brevity is the soul of wit.
