Philosophical problems with science.

[genkaus]

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.

To a simplistic, stupid person, not understanding how science works somehow gives them a standing on indicting it. Since you are such a person, I'll gladly call you dumbass.

If science is a search for facts

It isn't. Science is a search for the explanation of 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.

No - what a "fact" is, is determined by human perception of reality, which, in turn, is merely affected by time in history, place in culture and environment. The errors in human perception are not an indictment of science, especially since science has safeguards in place to correct those errors.

This means there is no reason to hold science as anything "better" than religion.

Ofcourse there is. Starting with better epistemology and ending with better results.

Science is the honest bullshitter, they honestly admit that science changes and methods change and that there is no "absolute".

The only reason why science doesn't deal in absolutes is because it recognizes human perception and reasoning as an essential part of the process and therefore the errors associated also become a part of it.

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?

They know it because more and more facts support their explanations, while the margin of error grows less.

If science is claimed to be a collection of "truths" then what is truth? How is a truth determined?

Truth is the measure of correspondence between a statement and the state of reality. And that is how it is determined.