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

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 01:39 (4595 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt consistently says that science DOESN'T tell us what is true(one of the things I agree with him about). I think you better tell that to Mr. Dawkins, though. His new book is geared at telling children that Science does just that. Not only does he unequivocally state that science tells us what is true, he also tells that science is the ONLY way to know what is really real. -If I could ask him three questions, they would be: -Mr. Dawkins, do you love your wife?
How much do you love your wife?
Could you please tell me what study you used to measure it, how it is quantified, and what the standard unit of measurement for love is?-
Science oversteps its bounds, as DHW pointed out, and speaks with authority about things it has no authority to speak on. Science DOES NOT tell us what is real, it tells us what is measurable. It DOES NOT tell us what is true, it gives us a statistical guess based on measurements. -But, since Mr. Dawkins IS such a well respected member of the scientific community(regardless of whether or not it is SCIENTIST that respect him), to the layman, he is the public relations man for science at the moment. His books make little to no mention of just how sure science is about things, or rather, how unsure. He rarely even mentions that the measure of unsureness that science presents is ONLY in relation to the available data. I.E. If even one single piece of new data arrives it can completely sink a theory that was an absolutely certainty yesterday. Science dances on moonbeams and claims to be performing a stately march on solid ground.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.