> Nether anything else, religion is based on faith and dogma. It can never be legitimised by facts as it will not be based on faith anymore.
> So what's the point of your statement then?
That the author of the article uses this argument to show that science alone is not enough. In comparison, like you mentioned, religion can legitimize itself through dogma. Science needs another system that promotes values and goals that can be achieved through science.
> > scientific process itself involves subjective decisions
> Yes, you can use imagination, try/fail approaches but those are then put to the test. And if my magical stone that keeps away tigers was found not to work, then its just a stone. Thats where the non-tangible and mistic claims come to die, or live (ie placebo effect, we don't understand it yet, but we know it exists).
I completely agree with you on this. Given enough time you get more and more knowledge. The interesting cases in my opinion are where there is conflicting evidence from different studies or sources and maybe not enough time to do further studies.
For example you have stomach cancer due to a genetic defect. Your doctor recommends you a medication which works for stomach cancer, but it has strong side effects. In all available studies there was no distinction made between patients with that defect and without. You reduce your survival chances if you take the medication and it doesn't work, but you also reduce your chances when you don't take it and it does work. So whats the rational thing to do?
> In my opinion the author desperately flails their arms in an attempt to obscure the murky argument. And it feels like convoluted god of gaps argument without mentioning god.
The author does not present a very coherent argument, but I still think he makes some good points.