Science discovering what is, is not the same thing as declaring absolute certainty. How on earth could you confuse the two?
No-one involved in science will tell you that they absolutely without any section of doubt infallibly know something. That is not what science is about, and it cannot be about that. It is a progressive movement that adapts with new information.
Yes, and I have never ever said otherwise. Science tells us what is. The quotation you provided from me was merely me pointing out the naturalistic fallacy that you made several pages ago.
In fact, did you even read what I said properly? How does me declaring that science tells us what is mean I happen to be contradicting my claim that it does not tell us what ought?
Science does not discover what is. We already know what is.
Legitimate science is science which builds technology. You are well encouraged to study who to build
this technology and even more encouraged to try and build better one.
However - science does not tell us
anything about life and this is an illusion humanity has to
start waking up from (before it is too late). If we won't wake up from that we would live in one huge
formula with no emotions, compassion, love, family what so ever - just an endless array of faceless
offices.
The theory of relativity for instance is a perfect example of a seductive fallacy like that which is a
bunch of wide speculation leading to no useful technology - zero what so ever.
When in fact - I have not seen a good explanation to what is the invisible force that pulls an apple from
a tree (why it pulls the apple not how) - if you can answer me this question after 500 years of physics
I would be happy.
This just shows you that science is absolutely
not interested in giving you answers - but rather
just with developing formulas.
Our technology is good - yet very problematic - we burn insane amount of fuel and natural sources in order
to sustain it - while the question if this is required is more than debatable.
Contrary to the naive view on science (as an adapting body of knowledge) - many people have suggested much
better ways in order to deal with this question - most of them ended up bankrupt and unknown at best.
As well - I can well supply you with examples of well respected physicists and natural scientists who tried to do
very well justified research in domains which do not fit the mainstream viewpoint and has been fired from their
universities (some even denied a Noble prize).
Also - did you notice that the two main physical theories simply cannot coexist (that is the quantum business and the relativity thing) - I am not very good in logic but to the best of my understanding it seems that there is something fishy going on.
Finally - did you know that through this process of accumulation of knowledge there are many things not being taken care of. For instance - the formulas of the theory of electromagnetisim (Maxwell's formulas) were developed under the assumption of an Ether theory. Einstein's theory of relativity is based on these equations - while disputing the
assumption of Ether - how is this possible from a logical standpoint?
Many gaps. Natural in any human endeavor - especially when not properly going
outside criticism.