(December 12, 2013 at 2:27 am)max-greece Wrote:(December 12, 2013 at 12:25 am)I and I Wrote: To a simplistic stupid person an attack on science is somehow an implication of a support for religion. If anyone here implies this from this post then I will gladly call you a dumb ass.
If science is a search for facts then it is based on an ever changing series of what are called facts, what a "fact" is, is determined by time in history, place in a culture and environment. This means there is no reason to hold science as anything "better" than religion. Science is the honest bullshitter, they honestly admit that science changes and methods change and that there is no "absolute". Which begs the question: If scientists know that science changes then what are scientists doing? Do they believe they get closer to a fact or a truth? How would they know they are closer?
If science is claimed to be a collection of "truths" then what is truth? How is a truth determined?
Science is not about facts. Science is about explaining observations in a consistent way. As new observations come to light that contradict existing theories those are thrown out and newer, more all encompassing theories take their place.
If your question is as to how we know science is advancing then an easy indicator it to look around and see the products of science and whether they are improving or not.
I'd be surprised if you didn't see improvement, personally.
"Explaining observations" is determined by ones historical place in time, education therefore class, ideologies, religions, all which can and often do form what kinds of observations and questions are formed. Meaning that science is not based in anything tangible just like religion isn't.
