|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
I think I'll take advantage of having access to somebody who understands science better than anybody I know (you), and ask the question: how does "science tells us what is, not how to be" not an accurate characterization of science?
Science doesn't tell us what is or how to be.
At its best, the results of science tell us, given what is, this is what will be (the predictive output of science).
The problem with "what is" is that we kinda always feel like we know it, but then later find out we were missing most of the details.
(Dark Matter / Dark Energy come to mind)
Science itself tells us a process to avoid being fooled, even when the one trying to fool us is our prior self.
|
Reply With Quote