On Sun, 2014-10-05 at 22:37 +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote: > Perhaps because science only concerns itself with making falsifiable, > repeatable predictions. (Continuing your anthropomorphism to make a > philosophical point)
Mostly, no disagreement with that. But "science" has spread itself over a vast domain and its record of making "falsifiable, repeatable" predictions is sketchy in some areas. Mind you it's still called "science". Few people call it art or astrology or mumbo-jumbo and the scientists in those areas would be greatly upset at such accusations and get their knickers in a massive twist. The "methods of research" used in science is applied in the field of animal and human behaviour and social extrapolations are regularly made using the findings of such studies that are passed off as "science" For example, I read one more recent article that pointed out that homosexuality occurs in animals and therefore it should be acceptable to man. Fine. Let me not argue with that. But if you are going to apply animal models to man, how about intercourse as soon as menarche is reached. Why is that "normal behaviour" for animals but "underage sex" for humans? Among animals one finds polygamy, polyandry and the "one partner for life" model. Once could take one's pick and say all are right, but all can't be right. Convenience, politics and social norms dictate what science says and does and what is cherry-picked as "the truth" Scientists have failed to ask hard and uncomfortable questions that need to be asked and have lowered themselves to a level where religion, with some absurd theories is fighting neck and neck with science to win hearts and minds. What a come-down that is. shiv
