No, your words go too far. I agree that science is the best way of learning about the functioning of nature, but you seem to be saying that science is the best way of learning about anything. This is false. Suppose, for example, that we wish to learn the meaning of a literary work. We do this through literary analysis, not through science.
Anything? No.
"What is art" and other such stereotypically subjective opinion based questions cannot be answered scientifically (although science may have some interesting answers as to why we like the "art" that we do - but that is a digression). But the conflation of "
anything" and the supernatural answers under discussion is a false one.
What is real? What is "true"? In the context of this thread we are talking about forms of evidence that are objective, empirical and material as opposed to those that are not. Nature can be studied objectively and empirically because it is physical. The supernatural (if such a thing even exists - and there is little reason beyond personal conviction to think tht it does) cannot be studied in such a way.
In terms of the topic of this thread - Are not all established supernatural explanations for anything at any point in time in any culture simply the result of ongoing indoctrination? I mean what evidence is there really for anything supernatural at all beyond simplepersonal conviction?
™ Version 4.2
