One small step for science...maybe?

How do you use the scientific method to prove that truth can be known only through the scientific method ?What experiment would you propose to prove that truth can only be known via the scientific method ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I noticed you did say this: But aren't there some things which the scientist presupposes ? She assumes certain presuppositions.I think that these presuppositions cannot themselves be proved by science. And I think that these presuppositions could be considered as ideology.I question that any one can totally remove ideology from science.And people of faiths do change. Hindus become Christians. And Christians become Hindus. At least cultural Christians and cultural Hindus do exchange beliefs.

By ideology I mean a kind of world view or philosophy about the way things are.I don't think anyone totally removes philosophy from science. Science is based upon it. Science presupposes some philosophical concepts.

It a good question. But I am curious why you only ask me.The poster wrote: Why did you wait to jump on me with the question ? Ask Meldnenoor.

How do I know that you are not "cherry picking" specific writers to bulster your claim ?Have you read all publications by IDers? Are you yourself "cherry picking" glaring examples to make them representative of all the rest ?You've heard of "Holier than Thou"? Have you heard of "More Logical than Thou"?A similiar attitude I think.

Science presupposes mathematics and logic. Science cannot prove them because science presupposes them.Science presupposes itself - that the scientifc method discovers truth. But this cannot itself be proved by the scientific method.So one can read books on Science, and books on History of Science, and books on the Philosophy of Science.Laws of logic are used to help us to know truth. Laws of logic are used in doing science itself. Laws of logic are philosophical laws upon which science is based and cannot themselves be proved by science. Well, I don't see much difference. You say that I may be right that you cannot remove idealogies from people doing science. So then people doing science have ideologies and they may effect their thinking on scientific matters.Saying, that only proponents of ID do that and everyone else does not, I think, is wishful thinking. Einstien hated to see the galaxies expanding from each other. He had a belief in an eternal universe. He didn't like to see that it was expanding and seemed to have a start from somewhere.He said that his "constant" in one of this theories to account for an ever existing universe was the biggest blunder of his career. I think that this self confessed blunder was due to his ideology about an eternally existing universe - a rather philosophical idea.You may say "But that is not science thinking that, that is the person Einstien." Does it really make that much difference?So saying "only creationists and ID proponents are influenced by their world view and not the rest of us normal scientists" is mistaking yourselves for the people you'd like to be, I think. And being willing to go where ever the evidence points is a sign of a truly opened mind.Sometimes I do not see that. I see people who would rather die than admit evidence points to intelligence in nature.You may be about to do it yourself. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.