[js1138]

So it doesn't matter whether the scientific consensus has a truthful basis? I mean it could "come up with" anything at all. But if what it "comes up with" is a description of a phenomenon as it appears -- and observation must be confined to what "appears" -- and then a bunch of other scientists replicate the observation and say "yeah, we saw that too"; and then this consensus properly "informs" the public about their consensus regarding this "appearance" -- then science's job is done???

RULE I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

Isaac newton.

[betty boop]

RULE I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Isaac Newton.

Neils Bohr would have definitely agreed with Newton here. But Newton had his "scientist hat" on when he said this. When he took off his "scientist's hat," he speculated about the sensorium Dei.... Newton certainly wasn't a "one-dimensional thinker." (Neither was Bohr....)