So it hit me tonight that science get us a long way, creating new technologies, making our life easier, given that you have the equivalent of what the technology is worth of to acquire that technology. In the relatively more advanced world of today, more and more people start to believe in science and a lot of them claims that science can prove everything, given the time (and of course resources but resources could be found if there is time so it's redundant to me).
However, I think that the simple act of believing that science can prove everything given the time is unscientific. People do that for religion, people believe something before proving it in religion, claiming that it's some fantastic work of the omnipresent person(s) above us. So given that to be termed scientific "a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." and as far I as know, I couldn't find any measurable evidence to the claim that "Science can prove everything given the time" this act it self is as if treating science as a religion, in which people readily believe what been told as true, without the need of proving it, thus rendering the act of blind belief in science as unscientific.
In which I exclude the fact that some famous scientist actually includes religious view into their scientific studies, Sir Isaac Newton for a simple example, in which he saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation, and by this he refashioned the world governed by an interventionist God into a world crafted by a God that designs along rational and universal principles. Which get me thinking that if science is based on assumptions and today science is based on historical assumptions, and what if the assumptions fails, given the saying, assumptions is the mother of all fuck ups. Does this lead to the fact that science is actually a bunch of fuck ups, made believe that it's scientifically proven to be scientific based on fuck ups?
More often then not, it is presented so structured that it's unbelievable to disbelieve, making it a belief, and statements which are made up of fuck ups are widely known as bullshit. Does this make science the equivalent to structured bullshit?