science or religion, page-24

Oh, I'm sure Dogby 'gets it'. I've seen his posts over many months and he seems to be pretty sound on science.

I'm thinking that it's you and bacci who don't get that there is a big difference between the notion of 'absolute truth' and 'settled science'.

You seem to equate the two - which is erroneous. They are different concepts.

The logical extension of your notion (otherwise why post it) seems to be the suggestion that science is useless and should not form the basis of decisions (including decisions to extend the science into developing associated technologies = moving along the R&D chain) just in case someone finds the science is flawed or incomplete.

Such views are not dissimilar to those of the Luddites.