All paradigms have gaping holes in them and conflict with other paradigms, which is usually why anthropologists use the term belief system.
Looking at science as a belief system. It cannot tells us what light is or what matter is. Beyond a certain point in reductionism we get into strings which require different dimensions and all other sorts of craziness. Added to the fact that science changed dramatically after Popper (who declared that something should only be accepted as true after attempts to falsify it have failed)
You also used logic in your argument. Logic is inconsistent with science, since scientific induction is a fallacy. Just because something occured in the past it doesn't necessarily follow that it will reoccur in the future. But people use logic and science hand in hand all the time.
The result? A belief structure. A paradigm attempts to explain the world. We accept it and fill in the blanks (or ignore them) ourselves.
Colm
|