RE: What can science prove?
March 15, 2010 at 7:21 pm
(This post was last modified: March 15, 2010 at 7:33 pm by theVOID.)
Science can't 'prove' anything, but it is still easily the single best methodology for ascertaining the likelyhood of something being true or false.
That's not true, the manifestation of supernatural or non-material entities (should they exist) in reality would still be measurable, so it's false to say science operates on the assumption of materialism, it is simply the case that everything ever observed in (or acting upon) reality has a (most likely) materialistic origin. The simple fact that the best explanations for any phenomenon (in terms testability, repeatability, explanatory power and the ability to make predictions) are materialistic in origin does not mean the supernatural is discounted by default.
(March 15, 2010 at 6:40 pm)Tiberius Wrote: To back Luke's point up:
An assumption is by definition something that is not necessarily true. If you rely on an assumption to make a conclusion, you cannot hold that conclusion as absolutely true, but true relative to the validity of the assumption.
Science relies on the assumption of materialism. Anything deduced or "concluded" by science is relying on materialism being true.
That's not true, the manifestation of supernatural or non-material entities (should they exist) in reality would still be measurable, so it's false to say science operates on the assumption of materialism, it is simply the case that everything ever observed in (or acting upon) reality has a (most likely) materialistic origin. The simple fact that the best explanations for any phenomenon (in terms testability, repeatability, explanatory power and the ability to make predictions) are materialistic in origin does not mean the supernatural is discounted by default.
.
