It's dogma that "Science has/can arrive at" all of the answers.
  This does *not* automatically imply the grandpa of Science,
  religion, is the alternative. It's ALSO not implying that
  Science is wrong. It's good at what it's good at. It's not good
  at everything. == You are attempting to analyze your own system
  utilizing the same methodology that's contained within the very
  same system. Can't be done. Snake eating its tail   = Pragmatic:
  I trust this bridge is sound based upon known evidence. Faith: I
  walk across this bridge blindly because I believe this bridge is
  sound. One piece of evidence that's unknown: an unseen tripwire
  across the bridge, will knock you off. Putting full exclusionary
  faith in science with eyes closed is as dangerous as any other
  blind faith. = Indeed. I blame the University system, as started
  by the Scholastics in medieval times, partitioning knowledge
  into exclusive, defined domains. It's USEFUL but then at some
  point, they have to be brought back together again. == The
  trouble isn't scientists or practitioners of science. At issue
  is the fans of science who are religious about it. ==

You are viewing proxied material from sdf.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.