Reliable Wonder

Shorter Jerry Coyne:

I'm not a Logical Positivist, I just believe that all truth claims are scientific.

Shorter PZ Myers:

I, too, believe that all truth claims are scientific. Also, there is no such thing as math. And computers are empirical.

(These remarks in response to Andrew Brown's criticism of Harold Kroto's remark that "Science is the only philosophical construct we have to determine TRUTH with any degree of reliability." (His CAPS). A few months ago another scientist, Peter Atkins, put forth the same sort of view on the BBC, in a short discussion with philosopher Mary Midgley, who quickly boxed him into a corner. After she pointed out that science's revealed truths were actually relatively small in relation (and subservience) to the truths that concerned humanity the most, the dialogue concluded as follows:

Atkins: But it adds wonder to it.
Midgley: That was there before.
Atkins: But this is reliable wonder.

At which point the moderator quickly ends the discussion before things can get any sillier.

[UPDATE: John Wilkins writes, on this topic:

Now there are those who think that science effectively exhausts our knowledge-gathering. This, too, is a philosophical position, which has to be defended, and elaborated (thus causing more philosophy to be done). I don’t object to that view, but for me, it is better to be positive (say that science gives us knowledge even if other activities may do) than to be negative (deny that anything but science gives us knowledge). It may be that we get to the latter position after considering the former; if so, that would be a philosophical result. (my emphasis in bold)]