[vigilo]

"I suppose for truth you'd prefer to invent pleasing axioms out of whole cloth and deduce pleasing conclusions from them. That's fine for you, I suppose. It's a nice exercise and inconvenient observations won't rain on your parade.

Myself, I prefer the provisional, inductive truth of the scientific method."

If you define truth as provisional and inductive, how do you define opinion? How can you call it truth if it can change at any time? You have demonstrated the problem with scientism, it mocks (by assertion without argument) any source of truth outside the scientific method but then must, in the end, admit that the truth of scientism is provisional and inductive, in other words, just the latest opinion waiting to be supplanted by the next big idea. Ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Science is operational not cognitive.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Here are some pics of her. She's actually way cuter than in these pics. We hadn't had her very long. At the time she was still blind. Her bloat had gone away, but she was still scrawny from being sick. She is only a couple of weeks old in these pictures. She's about two and a half to three months old now.

[aNYCguy]

Ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

So your beef with science is that its theories change to accomodate new information? That's funny; I've always considered this a strength.

What method, devoid of induction, do you use to find your unchanging truth? Could you give me an example of a truth you've found using this method?