[C.J.W.]

"Science certainly can never be a pursuit of THE truth..."

It's no wonder that people who argue this do not get to the truth of matters. E.g., if systematic thought applied to observation indicates a non-naturalistic explanation such as design/purpose they will still say it does not no matter how irrational they have to be to do so. People with common sense call a willful misreprentation of the facts a lie. That those who have no interest in the truth might be led into lying about what conclusions systematic thought and observation lead to is not surprising, though.

"Science must assume naturalistic explanations..."

Only it doesn't. And that is a fascist notion of science which leads to pseudo-science. True science began based on the notion of cause and effect. This was based on Aristotle's notion of an unmoved Mover. Saying that all is just Nature and there is no necessity for transcendent cause and effect puts one in the position of denying the cause and effect that science is a study of because you're saying that there are uncaused phenomena in Nature. If you begin with a rationale for rationality, instead of just rationalizations about it, you will be more rational.

[js1138]

Hello, ghost of Cash.

[VadeRetro]

Did it get lonely talking the walls at DesUni?

[BiffWondercat]

If you begin with a rationale for rationality, instead of just rationalizations about it, you will be more rational. That statement is going to give me a seizure...