How reliable is science? (Assumption 3/7) (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, April 20, 2012, 00:26 (4381 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

I am not saying you are incorrect in any of your arguments, but aren't scientist guilty of using the same assumptions? They ASSUME that the rate is constant. They assume that they know all of the factors that could influence decay rates. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.-I don't know what you do for a living, but as an application developer I'm forced to make assumptions all the time. -You know what I use as a corrective mechanism?-The instances where my assumptions proved wrong. -IN all of the assumptions I discussed here (albeit, from last weekend a little rusty) these are assumptions that have never faced a challenge of this sort. -As a scientist myself, I have no issue with asserting a truth and having it proved wrong.-It's all part of the process...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"