[chronic_loser]

You have confused a methodology with a construct of scientific theory. The two are vastly different. All scientific inquiry rests on some philosophical presuppositions. Modernists have slipped those in under the door and falsely claimed they are a part of science itself.

There is nothing in the application of empirical methodology which demands we begin with the (NON SCIENTIFIC) assumption that everything has an empirical explanation, or at least that real science operate within this construct. This has nothing to do with science itself but is arbitrary prejudice. Yet that is what is argued here. Many of the founders of modern science, would have scoffed at this.

[crail]

But this is what modern science is... we look for natural causes of repeated patterns. If our assumption is that god can make anything happen at any time by miraculous means, then there is no reason to search for pattern. Science now is a way of studying something... like it or not, as a scientist you are not allowed to resort to miraculous explanations for phenomenon. Period. You cannot explain anything by saying it was a miracle at the hand of god, since we can't dissect god. Without this assumption, we can't study the depth of science. Beyond this there are things that science can't address. These are the things you are talking about, but they aren't science. Morality, religion, politics. Not that they are wrong, only that science can't work on them... they are beyond its reach.

[RadioAstronomer]

There is nothing in the application of empirical methodology which demands we begin with the (NON SCIENTIFIC) assumption that everything has an empirical explanation

Should my elf theory of planetary movement be taught along side the theory of gravity?