I disagree on the statement that "Science ...
also approaches a subject from only one line of thought".
In fact, Science encourages different lines of thought,
otherwise how are the following assumptions corrected?
- earth is flat
- earth is at the centre of the world
- room-temperature water freezes faster than warm water
Scientists are always questioning and improving science, even
for the established theories like Quantum Mechanics and Theory of
Relativity. If a scientist can prove that an
established theory is wrong, his reputation improves.
Logically that's how it's supposed to work, but scientists are just
as prone to politics as much as anyone else. I'm just saying in
practice it's a lot more complex and less clear cut when you put
humans and their biase into the equation.
And to work with reason is to assume you have all the facts and
most of the time you don't. You would always have to assume such
numbers are indisputable when you don't have the capability to
measure them. I mean there are still different camps on
whether humans are causing global warming and scientists are still
divided on whether we have hit Peak Oil/Population.
Again, i do not say that scientific approach is wrong. I'm just
stating that it is flawed when you put in the human factor
because you would always have to assume certain things as
facts. It's not that clear cut as 1+1.
