Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt
Firstly, you wrongly assume that I have a religion to speak of, and that I was not just making a contrast between the teaching of Islam vice Christianity..Secondly this has clearly derailed from the OPs thread and would be better discussed on a Christianity vs Islam thread, if you choose to make one I would happily show you the error of your ways in regards to the misconceptions you have been told about Islam (notice i never said Muslims?)

You specifically brought up Christianity and challenged me to find any quotes in the NT to support killing blasphemers. If that is not your religion, then I apologize, you sure made it seem that way.

I don't think this has derailed from the topic at all because it drives the point home that religion is based on faith and personal interpretation of ancient scriptures, while science is about empirical testing and objective observation. No interpretation or faith necessary. The fact that we can even argue comparing and contrasting the 2 with such different viewpoints of each one, hits the nail on the head.

Muslims practice Islam, so I'm not sure what you mean by the last parentheses. I've read that "religion of peace" website before and if you really think it's not biased, I recommend you find out who funds it. Be careful taking that site at face value. I'm not trying to say one religion is better than the other, just that they both rely on personal interpretation of the holy texts, which is the opposite of science, since there is no personal interpretation involved in testable repeatable results.

Science is not a religion, and I appreciate you assisting me with proving that point.

a reply to: BO XIAN

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt
Firstly, you wrongly assume that I have a religion to speak of, and that I was not just making a contrast between the teaching of Islam vice Christianity..Secondly this has clearly derailed from the OPs thread and would be better discussed on a Christianity vs Islam thread, if you choose to make one I would happily show you the error of your ways in regards to the misconceptions you have been told about Islam (notice i never said Muslims?)

You specifically brought up Christianity and challenged me to find any quotes in the NT to support killing blasphemers. If that is not your religion, then I apologize, you sure made it seem that way.

I don't think this has derailed from the topic at all because it drives the point home that religion is based on faith and personal interpretation of ancient scriptures, while science is about empirical testing and objective observation. No interpretation or faith necessary. The fact that we can even argue comparing and contrasting the 2 with such different viewpoints of each one, hits the nail on the head.

Muslims practice Islam, so I'm not sure what you mean by the last parentheses. I've read that "religion of peace" website before and if you really think it's not biased, I recommend you find out who funds it. Be careful taking that site at face value. I'm not trying to say one religion is better than the other, just that they both rely on personal interpretation of the holy texts, which is the opposite of science, since there is no personal interpretation involved in testable repeatable results.

Science is not a religion, and I appreciate you assisting me with proving that point.

Well mainly because not just Muslims practice Islam it's a misconception and perpetuates a stereotype.. also you kept saying moderate Muslims and I made no mention of the Muslims.. and comparing and contrasting 2 different religions in a thread bout religion vs science detracts from the main discussion..and I in no way helped you prove or disprove anything..but please continue with you assumptions, inferences, and conjecture.

originally posted by: Greggers
Some problems with Kastrup's assertions are as follows:

1) The idea that consciousness exists as something other than a physical manifestion of brain fuction is not falsifiable. Therefore, it is not science. It is philosophy, even if there exists some science to support it.

I suppose it'd be easily falsifiable if you can irrefutably show that consciousness is indeed some kind of physical manifestation of brain function, but since we still have the 'hard problem of consciousness' as Chalmers formulates it, it seems that the materialist explanation faces the same problem. But you can apply the scientific method to determine which hypothesis is most likely.

And once we do that, it turns out that monistic idealism (which is what we're discussing here) has at least the same explanatory power as materialism, but needs to invoke fewer postulates to do so (see the 4 points I mentioned earlier). Monistic Idealism doesn't need to postulate an entire universe outside of consciousness itself. So on grounds of parsimony alone monistic idealism should win.

Monistic idealism doesn't need to invoke any extra theoretical entities, and therefore doesn't need to provide proof for them. Proof is a requirement for ontologies that postulate extra entities, which then need to be justified and substantiated; not for an ontology that postulates LESS.

2) Science is interested in things which can be investigated physically. Therefore, any testable hypothesis will undoubtedly involve the physical brain structures.

That's kindof like looking for your lost keys under a lamppost while you know you lost your keys over there in the dark spot, but you choose the light spot because it's harder to see in the dark.

Science is just a method we can apply to investigate a phenomenon. I don't see why we couldn't use it to investigate monistic idealism. For example, it can be validated or falsified by comparison against observations and the testimonies of other individuals.

It seems to me that you're confusing materialism for science, which is indeed a claim many materialists like to make, as if they're interchangable. But this is not the case.

3) In short, all scientists can say is that the only component of consciousness which can be proven to exist is the physical brain.

Do flames cause a fire? Does lightning cause electrical discharge? Nope, these are just the images of what these processes look like. Similarly, brain activity is what localized consciousness (the whirlpool in the stream) looks like. The brain doesn't generate consciousness any more than a whirlpool generates water.

Any good scientist will remain mute on the topic of whether there exists something beyond the physical body, except to say that it cannot be proven or substantiated empirically and therefore is not a suitable topic for scientific inquiry.

I'm not claiming that anything exists beyond anything. That's the domain of materialism, remember? They claim an entire universe exists outside of consciousness. My claim is that all experiences and phenomenae can be explained as excitations of consciousness at large, which can easily be verified by you here and now, since you've never in your entire life experienced anything outside of consciousness.

I am beginning to think that one of the main reasons so many people seem to think science is like a religion is because we lack sufficient education in our primary schools to give people a solid understanding of the proper role for science vs. philosophy with regard to our attempt to understand the world around us.

Science can only test that which is physical, and can only theorize convincingly upon that which is falsifiable.

I think I've sufficiently rebutted those statements, and if not, I'll look forward to your next reply

originally posted by: payt69

I suppose it'd be easily falsifiable if you can irrefutably show that consciousness is indeed some kind of physical manifestation of brain function, but since we still have the 'hard problem of consciousness' as Chalmers formulates it, it seems that the materialist explanation faces the same problem. But you can apply the scientific method to determine which hypothesis is most likely.

First of all, materialism is philosophy. It is not science. So yes, it has the same problems. The debate you're describing is between materialism and monistic idealism. Science is not one of the players in this fight, although both sides will attempt to use scientific arguments to support their philosophy.

And once we do that, it turns out that monistic idealism (which is what we're discussing here) has at least the same explanatory power as materialism, but needs to invoke fewer postulates to do so (see the 4 points I mentioned earlier). Monistic Idealism doesn't need to postulate an entire universe outside of consciousness itself. So on grounds of parsimony alone monistic idealism should win.

These are philosophical arguments. You're basically using logical tenets based on scientific ideas to say that your philosophy is more supported than another philosophy. But at the end of the day, it's still philosophy. It is not science.

Again, the concept of a non-physical consciousness is unfalsifiable and therefore can neither substantiated nor refuted with science. It can be supported, but not to any satisfactory scientific conclusion.

Monistic idealism doesn't need to invoke any extra theoretical entities, and therefore doesn't need to provide proof for them. Proof is a requirement for ontologies that postulate extra entities, which then need to be justified and substantiated; not for an ontology that postulates LESS.

This has nothing to do with science. These are, again, philosophical arguments based on rules of argumentation.

That's kindof like looking for your lost keys under a lamppost while you know you lost your keys over there in the dark spot, but you choose the light spot because it's harder to see in the dark.

This is a gross oversimplification, for starters, as it suggests that people are looking where they know the answer cannot be found. That's not true at all. Furthermore, scientists will look only at the things they can look at. They can only look at what is physical.

Science is just a method we can apply to investigate a phenomenon. I don't see why we couldn't use it to investigate monistic idealism. For example, it can be validated or falsified by comparison against observations and the testimonies of other individuals.

Science can only be used to investigate that which is physical. Do you honestly believe the idea of a non-physical consciousness can be falsified with science? If so, please tell me a specific test, and a specific result, that would prove it false. Please be both specific and granular.

It seems to me that you're confusing materialism for science, which is indeed a claim many materialists like to make, as if they're interchangable. But this is not the case.

No, it seems you're the one confusing the two. Materialists might indeed claim that consciousness is merely a product of the physical brain. A scientist, on the other hand, would say that science can only prove that which is physical and therefore can only analyze that which can be measured, quantified, and observed, which does NOT include the unfalisifiable concept of a non-physical consciousness.

Do flames cause a fire? Does lightning cause electrical discharge? Nope, these are just the images of what these processes look like. Similarly, brain activity is what localized consciousness (the whirlpool in the stream) looks like. The brain doesn't generate consciousness any more than a whirlpool generates water.

Why are you telling me this? I have not once given my opinion on whether or not the physical brain was completely responsible for consciousness. There is no need for you to convince me.

All I've said was that it was NOT science. It is philosophy. You are using scientific arguments and logical axioms to support your philosophy.

I'm not claiming that anything exists beyond anything. That's the domain of materialism, remember? They claim an entire universe exists outside of consciousness. My claim is that all experiences and phenomenae can be explained as excitations of consciousness at large, which can easily be verified by you here and now, since you've never in your entire life experienced anything outside of consciousness.

Again, this is an entirely, 100% philosophical argument. It's like how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin. Or more accurately, it's like Plato's cave. There is nothing scientific about this.

I think I've sufficiently rebutted those statements

No. In fact, your entire reply is missing the simple fact that any phenomenon which lacks physical, measurable causation cannot be falsified and therefore cannot be studied by science. Again, it shows that we do a terrible job of indoctrinating children with basic reasoning skills. Listen, philosophy is a very powerful tool. So is science. They each have their respective domains. Understanding the difference is critical to the ability to think rationally.

Dr. Judith Curry in a interview with James Corbett mentions some of the issues with what science has become in general ,and points the finger at 2 aspects .Money and politics that fit together very well to make a buck but have nothing to do with real science . If I could make a comparison it would be the the wolves taking over a genuine charity and steeling the idea to make a buck . anyway just dropping it off for anyone wanting to check it out

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Are these criticisms of science, or of human nature?

Greggers, thanks for your input.

You gave me some good stuff to think about, and hopefully I'll follow this up soon with some more thoughts, which I can feel sortof bubbling below the surface, but which I need to do some hashing out to express them clearly. Stay tuned

a reply to: DJW001

Probably a bit of both . In one seance the human political nature to control and scientist willing to connect the dots .Money and prestige and power seem to create this alternate part of society that should be kept separated . Kind of like church and state getting married , you just know it wont work out well .

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt
Well mainly because not just Muslims practice Islam it's a misconception and perpetuates a stereotype.. also you kept saying moderate Muslims and I made no mention of the Muslims.. and comparing and contrasting 2 different religions in a thread bout religion vs science detracts from the main discussion..and I in no way helped you prove or disprove anything..but please continue with you assumptions, inferences, and conjecture.

There really is no main discussion here. This thread a joke and a complete failure. The OP has already abandoned it.

Who are the non Muslims that practice Islam? Are you maybe hinting at sikhism or 5%ers? The word "Muslim" or "Moslem" is defined as one who adheres to Islam. Every site that I read about Islam says that its believers are called Muslims. Please enlighten me as I was unaware that these terms were used any differently. It's like saying Christians when describing followers of Christianity.

Anyways, that argument is just a red herring, it doesn't change my points in the slightest. My mention of Muslims was used as a description for adherents to Islam, not to generalize or stereotype. In fact it was the opposite, because I was making an important distinction between religious extremists and moderates.

Bottom line: Folks have different interpretations of scriptures that essentially say the same exact thing. Some interpretations are like night and day. This drives the point home, because science is not up for interpretation. It produces exact results. This clearly distinguishes science as separate from religion.

/thread over

originally posted by: birdxofxprey

Science is secular religion.
Science certainly is a belief system, its foundation is a commitment to the beliefs that:

- Empirical observation is the most efficient and accurate way to gain knowledge about the world.
- Isolation and controlled conditions produce the most useful observations.
- Observations (under the above conditions) are "objective."

No.
Science is not a secular religion, and it is not a belief system. It is not either of those things due to the simple fact that it does not depend on belief to make progress--it depends on tests, observations, and replication.

Now, for your three points...
- Empirical evidence absolutely is the best way to gain knowledge about the world considering our subjective minds have the capacity to fool us, hence why we need to repeatedly subject things to objective testing ad nauseam.
- Isolation/controlled settings do provide the most useful observations as its removes the potential for variables other than the control variable to have an impact on the results of the study. This ensures reliability and quality of the results.
- Generally speaking when there is something being observed there are multiple people making observations so as to eliminate bias and assumptions.

Thus, science has little concern for (and sometimes denies the importance of) topics such as:
- The existence of God
- Life after death
- Personal experience/observation that is not accessible to an "objective" third party
- Value judgments

As another user mentioned, science neither has concern nor lack of concern for either of these subjects... it simply does not pass comments on them, period.

But the most distinguishing feature of science that resembles religion is orthodoxy.
Ideas, theories or hypotheses that challenge accepted orthodoxy are not well accepted.

This could not be more false. There is no "orthodoxy" in science but only a generally accepted set of guidelines that have been proven to work time and time again--there is no belief involved whatever.

Immanuel Velikovsky's work is a good example of this. Admittedly, many (or most) of Velikovsky's alleged facts were not correct. But the principal thrust of his work was theoretical. While he acknowledged that some planetary change happens gradually, he proposed that other planetary changes were the result of catastrophic events (comets, meteors, etc.). In 1950, scientific orthodoxy embraced gradualism, but not catastrophism. As Velikovsky's work sought to incorporate catastrophic events into the general understanding of the history of the solar system, he was unorthodox and his works were, therefore, not well received. Well into the 1970s the scientific community ridiculed Velikovsky, ostracized him, and even tried to prevent publication of his work and deny him academic employment. The scientific community's attitude towards Velikovsky was significantly quieted when the Shoemaker-Levy comet struck Jupiter in the 1990s.

He was not a scientist. His theories were mere conjecture--he did not provide any mathematical formulae or guidelines on how to carry out an experiment to support it... so how could his work be taken seriously by more scientific circles?

Here's the point - if one wants to be accepted as a legitimate employable academically respectable scientist, there are specific beliefs which one must accept. Failure to do so precludes becoming or remaining part of the scientific community.

Not at all. You just need to have the capacity to understand that certain things have been proven true time and time again, ad nauseam, following a particular set of principles.

The overwhelming majority of professional scientists claim to be "atheists."

Sources? There are a lot of scientists who do, and a lot of scientists who don't proclaim to be atheistic.

But, the scientific community has an orthodoxy situated within the context of a hierarchical distribution of positions of authority. And this enforced orthodoxy is what leads some to refer to science as "secular religion."

I don't think you quite understand orthodoxy.

a reply to: Greggers

The only point I intended to make in my earlier contributions to this discussion was to acknowledge a significant similarity between science and religion. So, I concede what has been said about science here so far. It is what has not been said that interests me.

As has been pointed out, the standard criteria for meaningful and informative empirical claims include (appropriately) that empirical claims must be falsifiable. “[I]f it's not falsifiable, it's NOT science.” Thus, every meaningful and informative empirical claim has attached to it, the logical possibility of being false. [In order to “prove” the truth of any claim, however, the logical possibility of its falsehood must be eliminated. Thus, it follows that the truth of empirical claims cannot be proven.]

It has also been recognized in this discussion that the knowledge which the sciences make possible is knowledge of what is. Empirical claims are claims about matters of fact; their content is altogether descriptive. It is especially important to keep in mind that factual information alone cannot be used to draw conclusions with normative (or prescriptive/moral) content. That is, one cannot derive “ought” from “is.” Thus, the empirical sciences are not able to tell us anything about what we ought to do, or what is best, or just, or right. Value judgments, as distinct from empirical claims, are outside the scope of the empirical sciences (and, we might note, value judgments are not falsifiable).

And here lies the rub. To justify something is to show that it is right or proper, that it conforms to (or approximates) an ideal, that it is superior to available alternatives, that the way it actually is corresponds to the way it ought to be, and so on. Since empirical claims do not provide a sufficient basis for conclusions of this sort, the justification of science can only be accomplished through appeal to non-empirical (unscientific) claims.

It is in this context that science and religion are similar. The claim that one religion is better than another (or that some religion is better than none) cannot be supported by empirical claims alone. And the claim that science is better than other means of obtaining factual knowledge (or that factual knowledge is superior to other kinds of knowledge) also cannot be supported by empirical claims alone.

That something has or lacks value is not an empirical claim, by any standard, nor can it be falsified.
“[I]f it's not falsifiable, it's NOT science.”
So, if science has value, its value cannot be demonstrated empirically.
Thus, the ultimate justification of science can only be unscientific.

BOP

Actually, the ultimate value of anything can only be unscientific. Value judgments, as you've said, are ultimately unscientific.

I don't think anyone in this thread has argued otherwise. In fact, several people in this thread have made this exact same claim.

Although, it should also be pointed out, that humans share much commonality regarding what they value and what they don't. For example, we all have a biological imperative to survive. Ergo, medical science is something that most people will tend to value. Most people value the ability to live safely and comfortably, and to be able to extend their human abilities with machines, so most people will tend to value all manner of engineering feats, from cars to boats to airplanes to high rise buildings.

Here's a simplifying example:

1) The claim that insulin helps regulate blood sugar in diabetics = a scientific claim based upon emprical evidence.

2) The claim that the lives of diabetics is something anyone should care about = a moral/ethical claim based upon philosophy.

As you've said, WHY something should or shouldn't matter is philosophical. And again, you're not the first to point it out, but it is a point worth repeating.

One more point: I won't open up this can of worms here because it's a thread in and of itself, but human morality does in fact have biological underpinnings, especially for something as core to survival as whether or not one values his own life. It doesn't change the reality of what you're saying, but it is an interesting aside.

double post

originally posted by: birdxofxprey
a reply to: Greggers

The only point I intended to make in my earlier contributions to this discussion was to acknowledge a significant similarity between science and religion. So, I concede what has been said about science here so far. It is what has not been said that interests me.

As has been pointed out, the standard criteria for meaningful and informative empirical claims include (appropriately) that empirical claims must be falsifiable. “[I]f it's not falsifiable, it's NOT science.” Thus, every meaningful and informative empirical claim has attached to it, the logical possibility of being false. [In order to “prove” the truth of any claim, however, the logical possibility of its falsehood must be eliminated. Thus, it follows that the truth of empirical claims cannot be proven.]

It has also been recognized in this discussion that the knowledge which the sciences make possible is knowledge of what is. Empirical claims are claims about matters of fact; their content is altogether descriptive. It is especially important to keep in mind that factual information alone cannot be used to draw conclusions with normative (or prescriptive/moral) content. That is, one cannot derive “ought” from “is.” Thus, the empirical sciences are not able to tell us anything about what we ought to do, or what is best, or just, or right. Value judgments, as distinct from empirical claims, are outside the scope of the empirical sciences (and, we might note, value judgments are not falsifiable).

And here lies the rub. To justify something is to show that it is right or proper, that it conforms to (or approximates) an ideal, that it is superior to available alternatives, that the way it actually is corresponds to the way it ought to be, and so on. Since empirical claims do not provide a sufficient basis for conclusions of this sort, the justification of science can only be accomplished through appeal to non-empirical (unscientific) claims.

It is in this context that science and religion are similar. The claim that one religion is better than another (or that some religion is better than none) cannot be supported by empirical claims alone. And the claim that science is better than other means of obtaining factual knowledge (or that factual knowledge is superior to other kinds of knowledge) also cannot be supported by empirical claims alone.

That something has or lacks value is not an empirical claim, by any standard, nor can it be falsified.
“[I]f it's not falsifiable, it's NOT science.”
So, if science has value, its value cannot be demonstrated empirically.
Thus, the ultimate justification of science can only be unscientific.

BOP

...wordy but eloquent. And there you go, another delicious irony. The justification of science cannot be formulated by scientific means. But what we are addressing here is not justification, which is why it wasn't mentioned. Justification is a whole other ball of wax - there's a thread idea for you.

I think injecting religion into science is a terrible thing. And I have never seen religion as a science.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

...wordy but eloquent. And there you go, another delicious irony. The justification of science cannot be formulated by scientific means. But what we are addressing here is not justification, which is why it wasn't mentioned. Justification is a whole other ball of wax - there's a thread idea for you.
--------------------------------------
Much of this discussion has indeed been about justification. The responses on behalf of science to the OP’s claim that “science is religion” have not been limited to mere explanations of what science is. They’ve also included comments that are dismissive, mocking and condescending. Obviously, false claims can be refuted without trying to make someone look stupid. And, one would think, scientists should be especially adept at this since correcting an inaccurate description requires no more than reference to empirical facts...

Resorting to such unnecessary tactics, then, suggests that it is perceived as denigrating to science when someone alleges that “science is religion.” Some of the responses have in fact included claims attempting to justify science, defend its value and reassert its superiority:

Logicsoda – “Empirical evidence absolutely is the best way to gain knowledge about the world”
Barcs – “Maybe more efficient ways will develop in the future, but I don't see how anything could be better than observing and testing things in reality.”

This is more than irony, I think, it is duplicity. Science, which cannot ground normative claims, is nonetheless dependent on such non-empirical unscientific claims for its legitimation. At the same time, the main observation about religion (used by some to show that science is superior) is religion’s ultimate dependence on non-empirical unscientific claims.

originally posted by: birdxofxprey
It is in this context that science and religion are similar. The claim that one religion is better than another (or that some religion is better than none) cannot be supported by empirical claims alone. And the claim that science is better than other means of obtaining factual knowledge (or that factual knowledge is superior to other kinds of knowledge) also cannot be supported by empirical claims alone.

This is where the argument falls off a cliff. It CAN be supported that factual knowledge is superior to other kinds of knowledge. It's very simple.

Take a piece of modern technology that has been researched and developed via the scientific method. You will notice it was designed to have a specific purpose and unless there were errors in manufacturing or defects in the material, it does its job. Now take some non factual knowledge (whatever that is) and design a piece of technology from it. Simple right? WRONG.

Facts are what propel our knowledge and understanding as well as lead to new technology. To suggest that there is a better method than science for learning things (or that we may find it in the future) is downright silly. Nothing else has gotten us anywhere near where we are today with helpful inventions and medical science that has a direct noticeable benefit in our lives.

Can you even comprehend a method of discovery that doesn't involve real world tests and verification? It is very clearly the best method out there. Do you know of another method that works better? Do you even have an idea of a possible method that could work better in the future?

That something has or lacks value is not an empirical claim, by any standard, nor can it be falsified.
“[I]f it's not falsifiable, it's NOT science.”
So, if science has value, its value cannot be demonstrated empirically.
Thus, the ultimate justification of science can only be unscientific.

So you place no value at all on technology and scientific knowledge that has been improving our lives for hundreds of years? People are talking about value in terms of morality. That doesn't mean science has no value in society. Its value has been proven and demonstrated empirically, hence the fact you are typing your responses on a product of science and it works! Knowledge itself is inherently good and this is proven by the fact that our lives are something like 30%-40% longer than they used to be and our population has tripled in the past hundred years alone.

Arguing that we are required to have faith in the scientific method is beyond ridiculous. It proves itself over and over again.

originally posted by: birdxofxprey
Much of this discussion has indeed been about justification. The responses on behalf of science to the OP’s claim that “science is religion” have not been limited to mere explanations of what science is. They’ve also included comments that are dismissive, mocking and condescending.

The tone in this thread has been surprisingly cordial, in my opinion. However, yes, there has definitely been all of what you describe, except I want to point out that it's been from both sides of the debate.

For example, in my very first post in the thread I pointed out many of the same points you're making now, and a particularly vocal member of the "science is like a religion" crowd called me an ostrich and accused me of having my head in the sand, and his post was starred multiple times by other representatives of his side of the argument.

So it is worth noting that the arguments you're making now (about the ultimate justification of science being philosophical) is a point that has been brought up multiple times by those of us arguing AGAINST the op. More specifically, several of us responded to the OP by pointing out the respective domains of science vs. philosophy (and how they are related), and then by asserting that despite certain similarities, it is the differences that define these two institutions.

However, apparently, no mention of these differences was considered relevant by the OP.

Obviously, false claims can be refuted without trying to make someone look stupid. And, one would think, scientists should be especially adept at this since correcting an inaccurate description requires no more than reference to empirical facts...

People are people. We all have human fallibilities. Especially given the fact that I get the impression that several participants in this thread have gone around the track with each other multiple times before.

Resorting to such unnecessary tactics, then, suggests that it is perceived as denigrating to science when someone alleges that “science is religion.” Some of the responses have in fact included claims attempting to justify science, defend its value and reassert its superiority:

Logicsoda – “Empirical evidence absolutely is the best way to gain knowledge about the world”
Barcs – “Maybe more efficient ways will develop in the future, but I don't see how anything could be better than observing and testing things in reality.”

Science is the ONLY reliable way to study the nature of the PHYSICAL world. Remember, philosophy's domain is the non-physical world, of that which can NOT be measured, quantified, falsified, or proven empirically. In the above two quotes, "world" refers to the physical world, and "reality" refers to physical reality. In this context, how can you argue these statements are not absolute truths?

This is more than irony, I think, it is duplicity. Science, which cannot ground normative claims, is nonetheless dependent on such non-empirical unscientific claims for its legitimation. At the same time, the main observation about religion (used by some to show that science is superior) is religion’s ultimate dependence on non-empirical unscientific claims.

And in this same way all things in the universe are alike. And if we are to truly parse apart all the issues that are tangled within those two simple sentences of yours, it would take three or four pages. I'll simply point out that once humans have DECIDED they want to accomplish something in the physical world, further philosophizing is not the way in which to accomplish it. Science is the mechanism for learning about, understanding, and manipulating the PHYSICAL world.

This does not mean that science is better than philosophy, but it does mean that they have distinct domains where one will invariably reign supreme over the other.