[donh]

Only that science by definition is limited to the first human observer(s). If science insists on hard evidence to make its conclusions, then it must insist that only the perceptions of human observers be admitted as evidence. Than means, quite frankly, that science is not as firm as it apparently believes itself to be.

So much for stellar astronomy.

[Fester Chugabrew]

So much for stellar astronomy.

Not at all. It's just that so many assumptions ought be presented as such. It's that simple. Statements of absolute certainty are more limited than science typically admits. Did you not point out that the mathematical proposition of 1 + 1 = 2 required 80 pages to prove, and that even the proof was subject to correction?

The reputation of science does not suffer from admitting a lack of certitude, but it will suffer if it asserts certitude where there is none.

[donh]

Only that science by definition is limited to the first human observer(s).

Science is not what YOU think it is. It is what scientists think it is. Amongst scientists there is no generally accepted definition of science that limits its concerns to things that have occured only in the lifespan of "the first human observer(s)".

But, if there were, it would most definitely eliminate nearly all of stellar astronomy. The light from no event that occured in the "lifespan of the first human observer(s)" in another galaxy will hit us before many millions of years have passed.