"Following the science" is reasonable so long as it is actual science and not just a convenient method to use to convince others that wrong is right or whatever.
Creationists generally use their Bibles and a literalist interpretation of it to decide which science is "right" and which is "wrong."
Regarding convincing one that evolutionary science, for example, is good science, science is taught in the academic sense, not indoctrinated like religion. Whereas your pastor or Sunday school teacher expect you to believe whatever they say, and will repeat it to you often with admonitions for questioning, then ask you if you believe, and chastise you for not believing, your professor will just present evidence and arguments, test you on your knowledge of them, but never ask you if you believe the science.
Science that cannot be questioned is not science at all but rather is dogma.
As I just described, dogma comes from religions and other faith-based enterprises. Dogma is the set of ideas that one is expected to accept uncritically, which is an aspect of religion, but not science.
What science has a community of experts who have come to their beliefs independently after reviewing evidence, often leading to consensus and a dominant narrative, but if evidence shows that that narrative needs to be revised, it will be. Often, this follows a period of resistance. Individual scientists might become rigid in their opinions and unable to move from a prior position that younger scientists can assimilate. The community of experts will come over eventually, perhaps, as Planck said it, "one funeral at a time."
I am quite certain that there is far more we don't know about the origins and evolution of the universe we inhabit than what we do know.
OK, but so what? Science is making progress every year moving toward whatever its potential to explain as much of reality as can be scientifically explained.
What we don't know about how nature works is relatively unimportant. We may never find a definitive path for the chemical evolution of the last universal common ancestor, but that's fine. We may never unify gravity with the other forced (seems unlikely we won't ever do that), but that's fine, too.
What we DO know, on the other hand, has changed the human condition for the better, although both government and industry have used that knowledge to make the lives of many worse.
Today, our lives are longer (vaccines, nutrition, public health, pacemakers), more functional (eyeglasses, large joint replacements), easier (dishwashers, robotic vacuums), more comfortable (air conditioning), more efficient (computers), and more interesting (Internet, jet travel)
Please do not chop up my posts that destroys context and too often intent.
That's not efficient for the responder. He wants to focus on a particular sentence or paragraph and so needs to isolate it from surrounding and relatively irrelevant content. If you think that you've been misrepresented by the lack of inclusion of omitted text, you can demonstrate that yourself.
You know how to do that, right? You show what was quoted, you show that next to the restored context, and if you are correct, that will show that the contextectomy did indeed lead to misrepresentation. The classic example refers to the words "there is no God" in scripture. The missing context is the first three words, "the fool says," which clearly change the meaning of the isolated phrase.
Science does not evolve. It is. Only the knowledge of it evolves.
Science is knowledge. The word derives from the Latin for knowing:
View attachment 100161
Science is both a method and the body of knowledge generated to date using that method. Both evolve.
Einstein was not used as an appeal to authority Einstein was used as an example of scientific opinion.
That's what an appeal to authority is, since Einstein was a scientific authority and considered an authority by many regarding all thinking, which is why he was asked to be Israel's second president in 1952. His opinion carried weight that yours and mine never have or will.
"Truth" is something you feel in your bones when logic and visceral knowledge agree.
Disagree. What you call a feeling in one's bones and then visceral knowledge cannot be considered truth, knowledge, or correct. Those words can only meaningfully apply to that which is demonstrably the case. Empiricism is the only path to knowledge about how the world works and how it affects us.
What you are describing is intuition, which is notoriously unreliable as a path to truth or knowledge. It's better than ideas believed uncritically by faith, but not as good as empiricism. Pure reason is a path to mathematical truth including syllogism and the rules of inference (logic, reason), but though correct, these ideas are useless ideas until applied empirically.
