You misunderstand me. The point is that it is always wrong. Perhaps it is the best explanation at a time, yet still inherently wrong. The progression of theoretical science depends on the false assumptions of the previous generation.
No I don't misunderstand. I disagree. The point is that the scientific method NEVER claims rightness ... yet. Right and wrong do not enter into it. There is only a greater approximation to the truth (i.e. the fit of what is described and what there is). Possibly one day the fit will be perfect, possibly never.
'the false assumptions of previous generations' is actually a very limited and wrong way of putting it. There are 'scientific revolutions' where the 'assumptions of the prv...etc' are totally repudiated and swept away. As with any field of human endeavour, we proceed by imitation, repetition, amplification and revolution. All stages are necessary in the development of the field.....
Perhaps the material assumptions of religion are flawed but the metaphysical claims remain unscathed.
The material assumptions of religion are very flawed (I am ignorant of any religion that agrees in any way with the current accepted physical model of the world, as I said). The metaphysical claims are not unscathed from this. They are based NOT on pure rationalism, but on a rationalisation of what the originators of the metaphysical claims knew of the physical world. This is possibly one of the reasons why religions resist so staunchly the incursions of naturalism into what they consider 'their' areas of expertise - mind, psychology, behaviour....
