Reply To: Why do you believe in Science?

gavra,

“Pum Fakert! If something is “untestable” then it is not “proven”. The reason why conclusions are “proven” (and even then it may be within the realm of statistical probability) is because the results can be replicated time and time again.”

Go back and read my opening post. I am not talking about the things being “testable” or “proven” with the scientific paradigm, I am talking the basis for the paradigm itself.

As an aside, the whole description of science as never “proving” anything and never coming to firm conclusions is relatively recent. It is the formulation of Karl Popper as a way to keep science viable in the face of Hume’s criticism of inductive reasoning (the argument in my opening post).