Is science the only form of knowledge

@hippyjoe1955 excellent point. It is just a method of gathering information but is also prone to being incorrect

@hippyjoe1955 @Axeroberts scientific facts being proven false is a sign that science is actually working as it should. as i tell my students, [i]science is wrong until it's right.[/i]

@CopperCicada In the late 1950s early 1960s science became a religion and the priests of that religion all wore white lab coats. The priests in white lab coats would pronounce a new 'truth' and the education industry would then indoctrinate all the children with the new truth and the parents would not want to appear out of date so they would accept the new truth. After all science said. However science wasn't satisfied being a religion it had to elevate itself even farther to become god. However it was a god with feet of clay and the golden age of space travel soon reached its limits and new scientific truths replaced the old scientific truths with ever increasing frequency even as science itself became political and demanded the utmost adherence. Dare to question theory of evolution? Sorry old chap you are denied tenure and sent to the gulag. Dare to question AGW? Celebrities the world over will call for your imprisonment and even death. Science is a wonderful servant but a terrible master.

@hippyjoe1955 so, since i am trained as a scientist, i am automatically a sycophant to a "new religion"? and i am unaware of, and/or unable and/or unwilling to educate my students of the scientific and philosophical limitations of science?

@hippyjoe1955 for the record, some of the most spiritual and devout christians i have ever met were scientists. absolutely no conflict between science and faith.

@CopperCicada Didn't say that - but if the shoe fits. On the other hand if you can't see the similarity between scientific authoritarianism and religious authoritarianism then you haven't looked very hard or done the comparison. Science is a wonderful tool. It is just a lousy master.

@hippyjoe1955 You make broad statements that are unqualified.

If you note my post in another part of this thread, I describe is just as that-- a tool. My term was "method".

@CopperCicada If you put down your idol for a moment and thought instead of defend, you would realize that my observations are in the main true. Science has become a religion and even a god as your defense of it indicates. In my world the word tool is appropriate. Your mileage may vary.

@hippyjoe1955 well, i actually agree with you. i teach my students the difference between science, scientific materialism, and scientism. i was taught the difference by a lutheran elder and cathechist who taught me the philosophy of science. he was also professional scientist.

and thus more blanket statements: [i]If you put down your idol for a moment and thought instead of defend, you would realize that my observations are in the main true. [/i]

@CopperCicada As my old seminary prof told me. Your god is what you base your world view upon. If science then science. If Christianity then Yahweh. The only difference is who has the power to inflict their god on another.

@hippyjoe1955 i am just calling out your broad generalization. if all scientists are sycophants to the god of science, then so is the mentor i just mentioned.

@CopperCicada Give it a rest. There was no broad statement aimed at any one. Rather it was an acknowledgement that science is no different than any other human endeavour and power is too often the end game.