A scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism. The philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply distinguishes truth from certainty. He writes that scientific knowledge "consists in the search for truth", but it "is not the search for certainty ... All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain."[38]
Gravity existed in the most elegant form even before Newton’s postulation. Actually Leonardo’s experiment of dropping weights from the tower of Pisa predates Newton. But up to now, the wisest of the scientists cannot answer his/her own question, ‘What actually is it?’.
Are we alone or are there aliens in other planets? In order to prove conclusively that there are none, extensive searches through every nooks and corner of the universe have to be made. Such thoroughness is required.
In engineering we used the knowledge known through science within the limit of perceived reality. You cannot ask the most accurate laser cutter to produce dimensions with zero tolerance, but within the tolerance the product can be useful.
The above are truth statements. How much authority do we now give to scientific claims? Engineering pimped science by churning out fascinating toys, but it is a discipline that recognizes its limit and would be paralyzed if absolute are demanded.
Science has not being able to measure and test the substance of a transcendence being..yet. It maybe because of its own evolution of skill or it maybe it is out of the range of thoroughness. It cannot say that the transcendence being only starts to exist when science can detect it.
What are the attributes of this transcendence being, that make it undetectable, elusive to our senses and observation, and immaterial?
ReplyDeleteWhat about leprechauns? Using your line of reasoning, they must exist. It's just that science is not advanced or thorough enough to detect their frolicking, green bundles of energy.