How reliable is science? (Assumption 7/7) (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 23:12 (4382 days ago) @ dhw

I&apos;m going to deal with the rest of your post in a new thread, because I think we&apos;re at the point where we can begin to discuss &quot;The order of Rank.&quot;->Once again, they do so by imposing their materialist philosophy onto science, which is only equipped to deal with the material world ... hence anything non-materialistic is non-scientific and so cannot be true! It&apos;s a blatant distortion of language, philosophy and science, but all too often they get away with it.<-dhw, -The problem I have with your objection here can be illustrated by asking one question:-If science can only study materialistic things, then how can applying a materialistic philosophy to science be anything other than consistent and logical?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"