Replies

"It has become clear that you neither know the definition of science nor its limitations."

That's a joke right? You don't seem to think science HAS any limitations. ANY claim can be science to you. You have redefined science as you have most other terms you use.

" Science must begin with untestable assumptions."

Absolute horse manure. It HAS to start with testable propositions, or else science isn't competent to say anything useful about the claim. What the hell is the use of making a claim you can't test?

"In certain fields it makes testable claims, but it seldom, if ever, arrives at objective proofs."

In EVERY field it makes testable claims. Being testable is not the same as being provable. Science never arrives at proof.

"Testable claims are not what define science, but are only a small part of it."

Testability is a fundamental part of what science is. Always has been. Always will be. Without being able to test your claim, it's cannot by definition be science.

"Likewise, science cannot take place with only theories and data. It must also have shaping principles."

Yes, there are metaphysical realities that must be obeyed. One is that untestable claims are outside of science. Untestable claims, because they are untestable, have no usefulness. Again, testable does not mean provable.

"In your case one of them happens to be non-theism, but non-thesim is not testable."

Non-theism isn't a claim about the natural world. It's a necessary starting position for scientific pursuits, because theistic claims, for or against, are untestable.

"You say that the statement "science can only observe natural phenomenon" is a "fact," but you have not proposed a way to test that very statement."

How do you study something that isn't natural or observable? How do you study something that isn't testable? You keep wanting to have untestable, unobservable claims to be a part of science, yet you have NEVER provided ANY means of doing so.

" Your notion of what constitutes science is as old and subject to error as that of Francis Bacon."

So, now you are against science as it has been practiced for the last 400 years. Let's make a catalog of all the successes that science has had in the last 400 years following my assumptions, and let's see what your position has accomplished. Put up or shut up.

You don't seem to think science HAS any limitations.

As far as what it may ask and theorize about there are no limitations. As far as what it can answer, it is limited to human reason. There is no such thing as *the* scientific method, and there is no such thing as pure objectivity on the part of human observers. Furthermore, there is no pure definition of science, but only a general understanding that it consists of "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

There is more than one theory that can adequately explain the objective universe, just as there is more than one way of doing science. The selection of theories itself is not based upon empirical principles. Even the notion that reality favors simple theories over complex ones is a philosophical principle.

What . . . is the use of making a claim you can't test?

You tell me. You make the claim that "science can only observe natural phenomena." Now test your claim. If you cannot test it then it is, as you say, scientifically "useless." Even if a claim is testable, it can only be tested within limits.

Put up or shut up.

The birth of western science may be attributed to religious assumptions regarding intelligent design. What does Darwinian evolution's disposal of any intelligent agent have to offer science? Is there something science cannot accomplish by discarding the notion of intelligent design? Also, please explain what harm has come to science by assuming an intelligent designer is behind all that science can observe and do. Put up or shut up.