Philosophy is inherent to the practice of Science (whether you know it or not)

Hi Holmes. Just coming our of lurkdom for a quick twenty questions. I obviously agree that science is philosophy.I also don't like the fact that people look at science like it is the only way to know things. I personally think epistemology doesn't show this if internalists can still viably know things. Would you say science is tentative because of epistemology?I know that evolutionist's mention that evolution isn't proven yet has a lot of evidence. Would you say that under the requirements of the justified true belief, evolution is known? Is the Gettier problem significant to scientific theories?There is one position amongst the epistemologists, that suggests that if you know if there is nothing that can destroy the justified true belief. (defeasibility theory), then it is knowledge.I was thinking that most of the time, either JTB is knowledge, unless you have that felicitious coincidence. How does this apply to science as a whole, and have you solved the problem yet? If theories are regarded as knowledge, then is it partially because of defeasibility and that the reasoning is cogent?Surely scientific theory must require JTB atleast? For example, if there is more than one conclusion to be drawn from the evidence, what is actually fact? The evidence? Or is it that the evidence is stacked so high that the theory is regarded as fact because the inference is so strong?Forgive my ignorance. I only have knowledge and interest in philosophy and that lil branch, logic.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 08-03-2005 10:37 AM