(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 science exactly because methods change and there are no absolutes. How would you search for truth if you have an absolute you must take on faith and can't change or investigate?
They know they get closer to the truth by refuting the bad theories and proving the good theories. And using the truth which are established to find new truths and prove them with logical explanations and experiments.
That's how you get closer to the truth.
In religion you must take something on faith even if it could be a lie. That's as far away from the truth as you can get.
If you are serious when you write something like this it saddens me.
