[dtho]

The defining characteristic of science is that one can independently arrive at a logical conclusion by observing cause and effect. There is no belief or indoctrination necessary. Having faith in science is an oxymoron (although it's all too common).

[Supermancho]

> The defining characteristic of science is that one can independently arrive at a logical conclusion by observing cause and effect.

I'm not sure it's about observation of cause and effect. There are excellent youtube videos about the strangeness of time and how cause and effect are convenience terms. Reason is the basis for science, which we construct practices around that are effective in describing the physical universe.

Having a unique characteristic is not sufficient to differentiate a practice that serves the same purpose as any other religion. Other religions are more sociologically founded and aimed, but they serve a similar niche.

ie There's not a practical way to test out every scientific fact (although many have died trying), given the wealth of knowledge that exists and extreme costs to even perform the experiments. Faith in science is not an oxymoron, unless you want to define faith tautologically, to assert it is so.

[defrost]

Yes it is.

Predictable reliable cause and effect is entirely sufficient to cleanly differentiate science from religions that have no such demonstrable experiments.

> There's not a practical way to test out every scientific fact

They're documented - pick one that ionterests you and lets go on the reproduction.

Can we say the same about any "fact" of a religion? - WE can about the bulk facts in science.

That's your cleaving differentiation.