What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

Says who?

But that seems to say that knowledge through science sits above any other form of knowledge. That knowledge gained through science is prime.But if science gives only tentitive knowledge about things (for we do not know what we do not yet know) how can it know that it is the prime.Seems like there is a gap to be filled here

I agree. My point was part of a query addressed to Jar when he said that this about what science (or better: what a central element in what science is) is. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Which was what not I was asking you to about of course. You said any and all beliefs must be open to being abandoned (presumably in the light of evidence accululated in accordance with scientific methodology about which conclusions are drawn). I would presume you would include the 'pre-cursor' step of modifying ones beliefs in the light of such evidence/conclusions.This makes beliefs sound very much like scientific theories: if the evidence doesn't fit the belief then the belief must be modified to suit or abandoned. Beliefs are made (by you) subject to confirmation/denial by empirical evidence. Now this might be the way in which your own beliefs are formed (forever tentitive) but not mine (some aspects are tentitive, others are not)That is the philosophy of empiricism at work. But who says science is defined by one particular philosophy about science. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Your packing some words there which would need some uppacking. What is belief/reality/science?There is a thread looking at what science is running at the moment. Clear cut is is not.Globally the divide seems to be: belief subject to science. vs science a subset of belief. The athiestic, materialistic view vs. the believers view.Edited by iano, : change "science subject to" to "science a subset of"

No I wouldn't. But what tool does one use to decide on the 'patently' bit? I gather you rely on the conclusions drawn by scientists about evidence . I look to the Bible. I have no reason to trust fallen man to arrive at truth under own steam. Its not in his nature.Take this very thread: science started out because God-believers felt an ordered and methodical appoach was the best way to reveal how Goddidit. Belief sat above science. Then the Enlightenment came and even up to today we have people claiming that all beliefs must be subject to the findings of Science. Science sits above belief. A 180 degree turn around.Scientists are people with worldviews first, scientists second. And I look at the failing inherent in people whereever I have come across them in supposing that this thing called "Science" is by no means as objective and self-correcting as its proponants are wont to assert.Give me the Bible anyday

I'm a mechanical engineer Rick. I am more aware than most as to how science surrounds and shapes the world. It is, however, a worldview about science which says that all and every belief must be subject to the findings of science. It is not scientific to say such things - that is philosophy.You (and many others) seem not to be able to discern the difference. And when it is scientists who hold to such things one has a very good reason to doubt their findings.

I know it doesn't say anything about science. We are left to decide: "the Bible says this and science says that - which will I trust?" If the Bible says that men, in the not too distant past, lived to 800 years old then men lived to 800 years old. That this is scientifically impossible is neither here nor there if one has plumped for the Bible over science. I have no problem with science so long as it doesn't seek to speak in absolute terms about things it cannot speak absoutely on. Science is a journey Rick - not a destination. Do have the humility to project forward 500 years (assuming we last that long) and suppose people smiling at some of the conclusions some folk take today as nigh-on fact. That's happened before - it will happen again. Thats the nature of things scientific.You seem to me to be trying to establish "tentitiveness within boundaries". However "there are no boundaries that cannot be usurped by further knowledge" - according to the people who say that any and all beliefs must remain open to being cast aside. They should take their own advice.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Good. ToE thrown out? Possible? Its not supposed to. It tells us some things that happened. How they happened is open to scientific investigation (if one is coming from the angle that the Bible is to be relied upon that is). This is a different approach to the "any and all beliefs are open to dismissal" which stems fom Enlightenment-inspired philosophers of science.

What new information will come so as to change the landscape we do not know yet. There may come a time when the theory and the Bible align more closely than they do today. Not that science then would be saying anything more definitive than it does today - although I am sure Bible adherants then will mistakenly claim 'fact' with the same enthusiasm as do ToE-ist do now. I don't see the word 'tentitive' in there anywhere. Why is this?