Is rationalism based on subjective bias?

The most rational of man's creations, the scientific method, doesn't proclaim to be truth or to provide proof. It accounts for both the nature of people and advances in knowledge or analysis by never allowing anything to be defined as a final answer, or be beyond challenge.The scientific method gives the best explanation based on the available evidence and knowledge. Not truth, but truthful.This message has been edited by atthisaddress, 01-26-2006 05:18 AM

quote:

---

The most rational of man's creations, the scientific method, doesn't proclaim to be truth or to provide proof. It accounts for both the nature of people and advances in knowledge or analysis by never allowing anything to be defined as a final answer, or be beyond challenge.

---

That means the scientific method itself is not above being challenged.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

Absolutely. For example, one question that should be asked of both those supporting ID and those supporting classic Biblical Creationism is "What method whould you put in place of the Scientific Method for verification and replication of results and predictive procedure?"IMHO the single key failure of both concepts is that they do not provide a valid challenge to the Scientific Method. They dispute instances, but have not yet brought out a convincing alternative method. If they can do so, then IMHO they would have to be considered. It will then depend on wether or not the challenge they present to the Scientific Method provides a better likelyhood of successful explanations for what was and predictions of what will be.So far though, the Scientific Method has stood the test of time. It has been shown to be universally applicable and equally suited to a broad range of endevours and fields of inquiry.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion