Science: A Method not a Source

Good, clear statement of your position in the OP. I partly agree and partly disagree.I strongly agree that the scientific method is used in many fields of endeavor. I have often argued that the theological method and the scientific method are highly analogous. In fact, almost any field of study that wants to derive a solid answer about anything uses a variant of the scientific method.But I strongly disagree that science is defined simply by method. If it were, we would have to include history, theology, and many other fields as part of science. No, science is not defined only by method, but also by the type of evidence that it appeals to, and the type of claims that it makes based on this evidence. Physical science appeals to physical evidence; repeatable measurements or observations of physical parameters. And it constructs hypotheses and theories which are generalized descriptions of the physical behavior of the universe. These must be generally applicable and testable by other experimenters in other places. These additional caveats are part of "methodological naturalism;" science appeals only to naturalistic evidences and explanations in its application of the "scientific method."

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

They may be done using scientific methodology, but they are not science in the normal usage of the term. Their studies are not published in science journals, nor should they be. They deal with different types of data than science does, and they make different sorts of arguments and conclusions than science does. I don't see how science is "being subjugated" to empiricism?! Modern science requires empiricism! Without this, we would be back in the days of Greek non-empirical, non-observational philosophy; this is not science in the normal sense of the word. He's doing sociology or anthropology, not physical science. He's doing a study on what people believe about their origins. This does not necessarily have anything to do with their actual origins.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger