I don't know anyone who claims that science can answer all questions.
But the idea that explanations for things need to be reliably evidenced before said explanation is taken remotely seriously would seem to be an obvious criteria for considering any explanation of anything remotely plausible - No?
Xong writes:
He gets into psychology and philosophy and reminded me of some of the fine discussions we've had here.
It all comes down to the phenomenon under consideration and the explanation for that phenomenon being put forward.
Some explanations are evidenced and others are the product of wishful thinking and other such thought processes.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
