But we need to understand that “science” is a process we use to approach truth, not a subject. It is a method.
And there truly are only two (related) ways to scientifically discredit the truth-value of a statement (Sir Karl Popper). The first is to say that it really did not happen. It does not actually exist.
So that is the first principle. Reliability. Does it really happen? Is it reliable that whenever you see X, you also see Y? And so science has many ways of dealing with this reliability issue.
But there is another issue. Is what you saw what you say it was? Is your explanation or theory of the observation valid? Maybe you can reliably produce Y. OK, but does it really mean what you say it does? And THAT is an issue of logic, argument, and persuasion.
See, science is a method that is not (ideally) at all about our strongly-held worldviews. Rather, I need to compare my theory against competing ones. It is therefore impossible to assess the validity of my argument without comparing it against competing arguments. So I better not avoid those competing arguments!
Unfortunately, that is exactly what people on the Left usually do. They most often avoid logical argument like the plague, and do not have real truth-seeking intent. Their assumptions and theories are never put under the strain of logical attack.
And that means Lefties do not have access to scientific truth. They have a religion. Again, I’m not saying there is no way to get truth from religion, but it’s certainly not science.
You can say “Well, that’s just what I believe and my belief is no less “truthy” than anyone else’s!” (Aye, but the rub is that by those lights it isn’t any MORE “truthy,” either). Going down that dark path is a denial of truth altogether. Adrift on a Godless sea, so to speak. That is the basis of post-modernism. There IS no veridical Truth, only opinion.
But Lefties, are you sure you want to go there? Because the hammer that builds Caesar’s house can also take apart Caesar’s house!
OK, so then if that is correct (that there is no Truth, only opinion) why should I believe YOU over a dog-faced baboon or some still stranger creature? (thanks Socrates/Plato)
I mean, if all assertions are rooted in a Nietzschean will-to-power and have nothing to do with Truth (because there is none), your assertions are equally empty of truth-value and a mere ploy for power!
So that Post-Modern approach is not science. It is a species of religion. No one is saying that there is no knowledge to be had in religion, I’m just saying it isn’t science. It’s a different kind of knowledge. It lives mainly in the land of “witnessing” and “testimony” rather than mainly in experiment and logic.
Again, I’m not saying there is no truth there, nor am I saying that science is the only way of getting knowledge. I am merely saying that this is not scientific truth. Science never totally “proves” anything. There is always at least a sliver of possibility that my theory is wrong. When you hear someone who is engaging in epistemological closure (<cough> Fauci <cough>) you know that they have left science behind. A real scientist does not ever say, “the science is settled.” They know that the “tails” ever approach the horizontal axis, but NEVER touch it!
Epistemological Closure: I already know and there cannot be any more knowing! Yeah, that’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.