Reply #70: Trotsky....

[frustrated_lefty]

She said she is willing to accept evidence that prayer does not heal. She asserts that that observation does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that prayer is wholy without merit. And, I think, she is not insisting that prayer has primacy over science in any area, simply that science and prayer address different aspects of human existence.

For the record, there are areas of human existence where I believe science can NOT reliably make a statement. Efforts have been made to define morals and ethics in terms of science, but they tend to fall short.

Really, I am kind of confused by your stance. You say: "Ultimately, in human society, we need some sort of mechanism that we can use to resolve a disagreement. I assert this mechanism MUST be science over all others."

I agree with your sentiment that we need a mechanism to resolve disagreement, I simply cannot see how you feel science to be suited to this task? Science is a field of observation, definition, sometimes intervention. It is a field of study which primarily defines our relation and existence within the world around us. It fails in too many other regards to be the agency of policy making decisions.

Here's a typical dilemma. An out of work parent steals food to feed their child. Is it a crime, and, assuming it is, how do you punish it? Science is not well suited to addressing such questions.

It just isn't that easy.