> > Then comes the next step. Although Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. can't be proven wrong, they also can't be proven true. Basically the arguments between believers and non-believers are settled not on scientific evidence, but on faith or lack there of. This is where I think the next "religion" may take over. Science. I think that science is a religion of sorts, and unlike the previous two forms of religion, science cannot be wrong, because it's ever changing, and based on the scientific evidence that we would use to prove other religions wrong.
>

> A second comment: You say that "science cannot be wrong." I know why you say that, but I don't think I can agree.
>
> Science DOES get things wrong; it simply has mechanisms in place for correcting itself. Constantly updating your viewpoint to acknowledge new information does not make you right; it just means that you acknowledge your mistakes.
>

I don't think that's what Wes meant. Scientists do get things wrong, either from carelessness, wishful thinking, or any number of other fallacies.

The methodology of science, on the other hand, will never be "wrong". It's the only way to learn about the universe. We make observations, form hypotheses, and test them over and over again to form a working model of the way things work. There's no other way to do it. Science will not "evolve" into or be displaced by something else. And to me, personally, it's the *only* valid way of establishing truth. I don't think faith should have any place beyond the fundamental necessity of having faith in the grounding of the scientific method, logic, etc..

And what about those questions which science can not settle? I use cold hard reason to weigh the alternatives and choose the simplest explanation of things. After all, if we'll never know exactly why something is a certain way, why not at least simplify our thinking?

--gremlinn