Quote (Ysolol @ May 19 2010 01:08pm)
Well I'm going to go ahead and throw the combobreak argument out there, which is basically what infinite said.
Science is limited by perspective and subjectivity. All scientific means are subjective in that the most basic sciences (chemistry and physics) are bound to use tools that follow the "laws" they are trying to prove. To objectively provide evidence you would have use tools and means that exist beyond the physics you are testing, and likewise with chemistry. Even if this was possible those tools would also be bound to a set of rules and would themselves have a degree of subjectivity. What you end up with is an infinite chain of tools proving tools in an attempt to reach objectivity.
So what I am saying is that science is built on faith, in the same way religion is built on faith. Each side believes their tools are objective, or at least enough so to adequately support their viewpoint. It is foolish to attempt to "prove" anything as there is always the argument of objectivity.
Science involves faith after the fact whereas religion involves faith before the fact.
Also, it's practical to follow the "faith" in science whereas it's not practical to follow all the faith found in religion.
This post was edited by Handcuffs on May 19 2010 04:25pm