inference of a multiverse more plausible now: dark flow (The limitations of science)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, January 02, 2011, 08:20 (5076 days ago) @ xeno6696


> Well, as long as we remember that science isn't about 'proving' but model building, we'll avoid the pitfalls associated with 'proof.' 
> 
> As for Dawkins, considering that science has dispelled nearly all supernatural explanations, he's got a reason to be cocky. While I sometimes wish I could be religious, it's important to note that overall, science has made life visibly better for everyone. (For the record I've never read one of his books, though I'm familiar with his ideas and attitudes.)-If science is not about proving anything, but about model building, then why demand proof from religion. That is a double standard. That is saying, "We will speculate, but not prove. You, however, must prove all that you speculate upon."
And ultimately, that pretty much sums up my personal disagreement with the scientific community. They demand something that they themselves refuse to provide. I have my hypothesis on God, and it has changed and grown and adapted as I have expanded my own personal knowledge base and will most likely continue to do so. How is that any different?