How reliable is science? (Assumption 2/7) (The limitations of science)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, April 26, 2012, 00:59 (4593 days ago) @ xeno6696

Humiliation can definitely be an effective teaching tool. I am too introverted to be a good teacher for a classroom sized group, for smaller groups of 5 -10 I do really well. I don't have the patience for dealing with the gaps in basic knowledge anymore than you do, and routinely find myself frustrated with these situations at work. The frustrating thing for me is not so much that I want a framework that WORKS(though that is true to an extent), it is that I wan't a framework that doesn't exclude things which it is dependent on. To me that is like building a house with a foundation and no plumbing, just because you are not a plumber, and expecting whomever resides there to never use the restroom, take a shower, or wash their hands. So, my disagreement with you is not so much about the scientific method, which I have great respect for, but rather with the way the people who create that frame work cut out the things that they are logically dependent upon. -(And I work with gps systems a lot where our confidence is generally measured as an error ellipse defined by the semi-major/semi-minor axis. I like it because it it measures our errors in multiple directions, instead of issuing a blanket 95% confidence measurement.)

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