Is the lack of consensus, all of which pervades science as well, the determining factor of importance?
The lack of consensus evident in other areas does not pervade science!
In areas near the edge of understanding a consensus will not have been developed. Behind this leading edge the consensus grows as the evidence is gathered and alternatives shown to be wrong. The lack of consensus is only at the edges, not pervasive. And, unlike other areas of inquiry, there are mechanisms for creating consensus.
Scientific theories have at their base, some philosophical assumptions attached to them. In order to formulate some theoretical basis for this and that, one must first have in mind some kind of philosophical assumption that goads on the investigation for an concrete answer.
Would you care to list these assumptions? Which ones of them are not subject to continued testing?
Edited by NosyNed, : moved a comma
™ Version 4.2
