[aNYCguy]

Science is fine for showing us how to manipulate the physical world and how to behave in the lab. But outside of that it can't give us truth.

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.

[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.

[Quix]

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

Which ALSO has it's considerable and ALSO devastating blind spots.