[ryanatau]

Quote by: Zhavric Neither of these are problems. They're misunderstandings of science & logic.

yes and that is why some of the most brilliant people have tryed to answer these problems and failed.

Quote by: Zhavric Non-science is anything without a definite answer. "Was that baseball game a good game?" Isn't a scientific question. It's too subjective. Any parameters we invent will be different from person to person nor do we have any justification for them. Is a high scoring game a good game? Is a game in which a player is injured a good game? Is an important game a good game?

yes "is a baseball game good" clearly is not science. However, is astrology science? The criterion that it must have a definite answer does not make something science. Is creationism science? I would say no, but it claims to have a definite answer to a problem. It is not subjective.

Science is a tool for understanding the natural world. That's all. We don't need science to tell us what our morals are (but science can help us understand why we developed morality). Simply because a tool cannot perform a function it was never intended for doesn't negate the value of that tool. A hammer is useless for welding bits of metal together... does that mean we should "doubt" hammers and not use them to hammer nails? Certainly not.

I never asked science to answer moral questions. I am asking for something that demarcates science. For example, Thomas Kuhn said science and non-science are demarcated because science operates inside a paradigm and scientists are just puzzle solvers inside of the paradigm.

Consistant observations are just that. Consistant. So long as we enjoy a consensus, we can make determinations about our world. The argument you've presented is just another in a long line of "Science is a religion" arguments which all end the same way: the anti-science crowd always has to radically re-define faith, broadening it to make it encompass any sort of belief. This arguemnt is useless because it posits believing a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father existed is on an even level with 1+1=2 which is asinine.

No the problem of induction is not a science is a religion statement. In fact I hold science way above religion. However, I do so because I understand the problem of induction and do not think it hinders science. Induction is verified with empirical observation, however, these observations are justified because they have always worked. I eat bread and know I will become full because I have always become full after eating bread. I have empirically observed that bread makes me full. But now what justifies my belief that empirical observations can lead to a prediction about the future? Well because they always have. It begs the question. The trouble is purely and epistemological one. Can science claim that it is finding truth or only that it is ruling out falses?