A few other thoughts from our discussion on Wed.  There are serious limitations to the scientific method (that naturalists don't acknowledge.)  A large part of science/engineering is modeling what is going on in nature.  However, to quote a probability professor (at JHU) "all models are wrong, just some are useful."  Can we really claim to knowledge of truth if we understand the model/equation/relationship?  No, what we have done is formed an *estimate* of truth.  Granted, that may be very accurate and very useful, however, the greater the stochastic variability, the less certain we can be.  So even in science, some truths are well modeled and well understood, however, others are just statistical estimates of truth.

Secondly, (in the limit, perhaps) we run into the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, where the unknowability of (quantum) truth is scientifically proven!  The very act of scientific observation affects the system we are trying to understand.  We cannot know both the position and momentum of a single particle simultaneously.  (See wikipedia for background.)

In summary, there are limits to scientific understanding, even in science.  It is preposterous to think that the scientific method is the best approach to other types of truth (moral, spiritual, aesthetic, etc.) as well.

Well, there's some thoughts.  comments are welcome,
Andrew