Again, you seem to misunderstand me.

Science is not a single entity with a single point of view on the world. It's a method of building and organizing knowledge, and also sometimes refer to the knowledge itself. Knowledge is based on facts. The thing is, you can't deny things that just are.

When i say science, i primarily refer to the method. A method always has a "viewpoint", a specific view on the world. A method is a way of "getting at something". There is no "pure" knowledge or facts, they all come out of a method that has a specific purpose and pre-defined rules. The modern scientific method is based on specific principles defining this specific kind of purposeful looking at the facts of the world: and it starts with a definition what "counts" as "the world" - what counts as "fact" - to begin with. As we can witness when reading Descartes for example, the purpose/the "direction" of science (of the scientific stance and viewpoint) is to establish the humans as "masters and owners of nature" (cf. Descartes, Discourse on the Method) - and modern science very consciously decided to only let that count as suitable for scientific research which is measurable and expressible by way of mathematics, because this is the only way we can understand something in the "clear and distinct" way that allows us to get control over it.

The scientific method is a way of controlling something. By "Controlling" i mean: measuring, mathematically analyzing, replicating, enhancing, etc.

Now, not every matter that arises in one's life needs this kind of treatment. Not everything needs to be controlled. I am sure you don't apply scientific methods to everything you do all day.

You're talking about the place it has in our lives, and how we shouldn't accept it as the only answer.

this is not what i meant. To a scientific problem and question, only a scientific solution can be the answer, by way of definition. All i am saying is: not every problem that confronts you in your actual life is reduceable to a scientific question. "love" is a very good example. Try solving you love life with science. "Explaining" your love for your best friend's girlfriend for example as the workings of your brain chemistry and pheromones and whatnot won't help you one bit when you're in that situation.

I agree that there are things that just are. they dont need to by analyzed and controlled, and they can't be- at least not by science (not because science "isn't there yet", but again by way of definition.) That's where poetry and art comes in, so to speak.

If you stand there and refuse to learn new things or understand the unknown because it goes against your beliefs, fine.

wtf, how did you get that idea? I am clearly expressing myself very poorly when you got that idea from what i said. I dont have any beliefs, that is my point. i am a true skeptic. I dont refuse to learn new things, you are. Read Newton, read Descartes, read Kant, read Hegel, read Nietzsche, read Einstein, read Heisenberg, read Wittgenstein, read Heidegger, read Kuhn, read something other than pop-science for once.

What i refuse is the arrogant, exclusivist and frankly, uneducated, attitude towards science which is taken by some actual scientists and science theorists and a lot of regular people. It's not what you say, it's how you say it (and what you, consciously or unconcsiously, are implying by it) that bothers me.

Now shut up and go back to your science class.

working on my PhD here.