Isn't "Science" (as understood today) a fairly "new" (relatively speaking) term, which dates back a few centuries at best, and one whose meaning has changed quite significantly along the way?
Doesn't the view below make sense too: Philosopher of science Paul K Feyerabend ... holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself. Feyerabend advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified. He also contended ... that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science I find the science-can-do-no-wrong suggestion to be religious, if not fanatical, in its approach. FN Frederick Noronha :: +91-9822122436 :: +91-832-2409490 > The truth is the above claim is unscientific > and bogus from an objective factual > standpoint. Science has nothing to do > with the supernatural. It has nothing to > say about the question of God, one > way or the other. It does not support > or refute anybody's religious beliefs.
