2007-03-13 13:00:14 · 8 answers · asked by HAND 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Good question. It all goes back to the validity of reason, which has to be taken as axiomatic (can be neither proven nor disproven). In that sense it may be called a statement of faith but in reality we judge the validity of science by its ability to produce desired results, which it does extremely well.
2007-03-13 13:04:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't matter whether or not ONLY scientific evidence is true. It matters whether scientific evidence is true. And truth is relative anyway. So the best we can offer you is that scienfitic evidence provides a reliable means of weighing the probability between possible "truths". Which it does.
Hope this helps.
2007-03-13 20:04:22 · answer #2 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Once a piece of evidence is found, it becomes scientific evidence. There is no other kind. There is no faith, only observable fact.
2007-03-13 20:07:21 · answer #3 · answered by Huggles-the-wise 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Funny and true!
For example, the circumference of the earth, we cannot know the circumference of the earth unless someone takes a giant tape measurerer and measures it, even with satellites we simply have faith that the satellites tell us the measurement!
2007-03-13 21:57:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It only makes sense that verifiable and repeatable evidence is better than something that can't be verified. Unless you believe that people never get it wrong or that they don't lie.
But hey if you think that, I got some great property for sale in Florida.
2007-03-13 20:08:04 · answer #5 · answered by Alex 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It all stems from the axiom "reality exists". This seems like a pretty sensible axiom to me.
2007-03-13 20:05:13 · answer #6 · answered by Om 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Does not compute
Please enter data correctly
2007-03-13 20:04:18 · answer #7 · answered by hate 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
makes no sense.
2007-03-13 20:04:11 · answer #8 · answered by noestoli 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋