The fact that we as humans do not know all things that are possible is our own limitation. Scientific law is an incomplete canon of natural law, as science is a constantly evolving explanation of things that have occurred, not of all events possible to occur, whereas the laws of nature are not known in their entirety to us, but contain the entire realm of all things possible, hence the continued evolution of scientific knowledge.
Of course, science is based on "facts". However, facts by their very nature have to have occurred and been observed. There are things that have not been observed or known by science. The implication here is that there is a scientific explanation for everything, scientists just haven't figured it all out yet. You have FAITH in science. Others have FAITH in God.
Look back to Galileo, scientists used "facts" to determine the earth was the center of the universe. New 'facts' became available and science changed. Science is not an infallible enterprise, and conclusions being supported by facts does not make them correct, only defensible in the court of reason. Science is not prescriptive; It cannot tell us all of what is possible/impossible. Science is only true until proven otherwise.
For instance, science would say it is impossible for a man, unaided, to defy gravity (flying or otherwise) because it has not happened and believes gravity is a "law" of nature. However, were a man to one day hover unaided, science would go to work explaining how such a thing is possible and thus science would once again shift, and the scientists of that age would indeed declare that science is based on facts, while the science of this age is shown faulty, yet we are asked to endure it as if it is indeed absolutely true, any consideration to the contrary being dismissed as foolhardiness.
No comments:
Post a Comment