Thanks.
I agree with you though, most of everything we know is conjecture or hypothetical. Even scientific fact is only fact because for each experiment carried out, the experiment results either validate or invalidate the hypothesis.
Source 1
This, however, is what makes me believe in pure science more than anything. With pure science just because your hypothesis is proven valid or invalid, this proof does not completely make your hypothesis irrelevant. Your hypothesis can and will be subject to scrutiny as we learn more and more about our environment. Within the confines of pure science, you are better off, if you keep an open mind. As long as you keep an open mind, you find fact's to support theories as opposed to theories to support fact's.
Source 2
-saige-
P.S. -- I must also point out, that with the line of reasoning presented here, you don't just pick and choose facts to support your theories. All fact's must support your theory. Of course, something about that sentence of mine is remiss. It just looks funny. Perhaps someone could come along and set me straight.
-saige-
edit on 29-8-2011 by saige45 because: Added PS



