[dan1123]

Beats me. Check back in a few hundred years. Science as we know it is a very young field. We're doing pretty good, and we have a good self-correcting mechanism to try to root out errors.

It is your position that all universal truths can or will eventually be discovered by science? That there are none excluded by definition or by method?

By the way, understanding philosophical positions and difficulties with science does not mean arriving at a correct answer, but knowing when you can no longer make assumptions for the voracity of your position.

[Coyoteman]

Beats me. Check back in a few hundred years. Science as we know it is a very young field. We're doing pretty good, and we have a good self-correcting mechanism to try to root out errors.

It is your position that all universal truths can or will eventually be discovered by science? That there are none excluded by definition or by method?

As I said, check back in a few hundred years.

I have so little interest in philosophy that I don't even care to debate it. For one thing, how does a philosopher know that he has come up with a correct answer? What test does a philosopher apply to determine his answer is correct, rather than just rhetoric?

I think you should continue this discussion with Alamo-Girl and betty boop. They would probably enjoy it far more than I would. I have pinged them to this post.