Originally Posted by
Guisslapp
I think you are conflating knowledge and truth - epistimology and metaphysics. The former deals with our consciousness's relationship with the latter. I agree with the disciplined approach to undertanding truth and the scientific method does that. The method is rigorous and when done properly maintains the contextual nature of the observation.
Religion is a subjective guess at truth, based on the extremely limited knowledge of the pre-enlightened writer. Just because it is not malleable does not render it objective.
You are also conflating the scientific method with scientific knowledge. The former is a means for acquiring the latter. Lack of rigor in the application of the former can lead to problems with the latter, and that includes failure to consider the breadth of a data set (domain), boundary conditions, abilities and limitations of the observational tool, etc. Thus, if a scientist improperly accepts this knowledge without understanding its context (domain, boundary conditions, limitations, etc), the scientist could misapply it. This is not a problem with science (I.e., the rigorous method) but with the particulars of the knowledge the scientist has formed. But even if the scientist improperly shortcuts, rigorous application of the method - particularly when contradictory observations or laws/theories from other domains are learned - allows a scientist to correct its error and improve.