I fail to see how my practice of solving a combinatorial equation has any bearing at all on ethics or morality... so I can't buy the idea that 'all endeavors try to answer the same question.' 
> 
> The same for functional analysis or number theory.-Mathematics is a tool that is applied to many fields, not just pure mathematics. It is used in everything from physics to religion to ethics..(if you don't believe that just ask the last graduate who applied for a job and was turned down to meet a quota derived by superficial reduction of populace to ethnic percentage rates which were then in turn applied to 'ethical' hiring standards. I certainly did not mean the statement to be linear. Unless your are Douglas Adams, the meaning of life is not 42.

In the English language there are only six basic questioning words: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How. Any question is essentially a subcategory of one of these 6 that is being applied to a specific criterion. While each of the sciences focuses on a specific one of these questions, they are all interconnected in a completely inseparable way, each leading to the other in a never ending circle. And it is only with the application of all 6 questions that one can get a complete picture. I am not so certain why this is not obvious Xeno, nor way I trying to be misleading or offensive, but the idea that there can be more than superficial separatism between any branch of science, or even between sciences, religion, and philosophy, is, to my way of thinking, absurd. For example, if a historian says that Egyptians built the Pyramids, and left it at that, we wouldn't know anything more than what we knew a moment before. It is not until the carbon dating, the linguistic translations, the mathematical analysis, the religious and philosophical implications, the chemical/mechanical requirements for construction, and any other related questions have all been answered and AGREE that we can say that we really know anything about the Pyramids at all. (And while there is much more involved than this simplistic example, it is early, and I do not have the time nor patience this morning.)I think a much more clear example would be a historical look at exactly where the disciplines of the various sciences and philosophy had their origins, i.e. Religion. They all come from the same womb, so to speak, and they are all inextricably bound together.

Romansh,-So the problem for you isn't that science doesn't give you answers, its that its answers don't lead to a definitive resolution? There's no final answer?-If this is your thrust you have a fallacy in your thinking; -You make the assumption here that objective truths (or knowledge) is something that actually exists. -It does not. If for no other reason than that objective knowledge is only ever tacit knowledge for each of us. And that's not truly objective!-Since we know that objective knowledge does not exist, that only leaves us with answers that are always tentative to some degree or other. -This stated, there is no other system that will allow multiple people to arrive at the same conclusions with the same degree of accuracy as science. -Science gives us answers; the answers are always tentative, but considering that it is the BEST model for deriving and communicating knowledge as objectively as possible, we can rest assured that these answers are always the best we have. And they are answers; if our argument is in semantics here it is because I do not have a word for answer that means "end result." -You example of unraveling the broader nature of Bubonic plague is a direct example of this. When do we consider a topic settled? Only when we agree all our questions become sufficiently answered. -We can say that our studies are done when we can no longer produce fruitful questions. In my own case of lightning; there is no question today about what causes lightning. The only thing that could reopen a study of lightning would be some phenomenon that is provably electric in origin, yet unexplained by the existing theories. -So, I would amend your original statement by saying, -"I too used to believe science tried to give us objective truth."-There are answers, but there is no objective truth, only observable probabilities.

--
\"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.\"