[Doctor Stochastic]

Still, it's true I do see science as the “junior partner” in this scenario; for there is more to universal truth than what science discerns.

This gives no method for deciding which "universal truth" one should accept. There are many anti-science systems. They don't necessarily agree except in their alliance against scientific inquiry.

[MacDorcha]

This gives no method for deciding which "universal truth" one should accept. There are many anti-science systems. They don't necessarily agree except in their alliance against scientific inquiry. perhaps you didnt read correctly. they, like all the other well rounded people out there are NOT saying "Science is not right" they ARE saying "Science is not ALL right." you're claiming they attack science leads me to believe you hold it sacred and it can't be tainted with other reasons. so it's true then, by your own words. Science IS a religion to some. yourself included.

[betty boop]

They don't necessarily agree except in their alliance against scientific inquiry.

"Alliance against" is your perception, Doc. My perception is that the two major domains of human knowledge -- in the German language, Naturwissenchaft (the natural sciences) and Geisteswissenschaft (generally philosophy, including metaphysics and epistemology) are both necessary and ultimately complementary. One of the greatest physicists who ever lived, Niels Bohr, seemed to think so. He didn't want to see the natural sciences cross the street into the other domain (and presumably the reverse situation was also illegitimate in his view); but neither did he think the other domain was useless. He just didn't think it was the business of science. (Metaphysical naturalism, by his lights, would probably be a good example of an abuse of science.)