(September 12, 2014 at 11:40 am)sswhateverlove Wrote: I would say the scientific method gives us the ability to learn pieces of the "truth", but without omniscience we don't know for sure that we're not missing some valuable piece that's causing us to misunderstand our data.
All in all, knowing pieces helps us greatly, but to know the total of "truth", well... That's pretty much the point of each of the threads that I've posted, we don't know.
Let me get this straight. The purpose of all your threads is to claim that we don't know everything?
Our lack of omniscience does not invalidate what we do claim as knowledge. The whole point of scientific inquiry is to discover and understand our universe, big and small. Science starts with the premise that something is unknown and then goes about attempting to provide a reasonable explanation based on observation.
Our imprecise faculties do not invalidate our current body of knowledge. Limitations of perception are well understood and accounted for. Science goes out of its way to mitigate the effects of errors of direct perception. Your argument along these lines suggests that our knowledge of infrared and ultraviolet electromagnetic phenomenon can't be trusted because we only see in the visible spectrum (and even this is to be doubted). Science and philosophy have come a long way since Descartes.
No scientific fact comes stamped with a label "100% guaranteed"; everything is subject to revision based on new evidence. Your attempt to discredit our ability to know combined with citing specific unknowns at the boundary of our understanding in an attempt to give plausibility to wild unsupported assertions is so incoherent it isn't even wrong.