Based on: Popper – The Logic of Scientific Discovery

1. What is the problem of induction and how is science limited?

→ Induction does not show that scientific knowledge does not depend on
induction at all. The problem of induction arises because no matter how
many positive instances of a generalization we observe, the next instance
can always falsify it. Science, however, is fundamentally about falsifying
theories, rather than confirming them. Inferences from falsifying instances
of a theory to the falsity of the theory are purely deductive. Thus,
according to Popper, everything in science is provisional and subject to
change.

2. What criticisms against science arise from such a fundamental problem?

→ Science is about falsification not confirmation of a hypothesis. Popper

argued that a good idea could be tested with the danger of being
incorrect, resulting in more knowledge than a notion that could not be
tested but promised to explain everything. Fundamentally, we learn from
our errors.
→ All of our knowledge is provisional and subject to correction in the future.

Based on: Peter Atkins – Science and Religion: Rack or Featherbed

The Uncomfortable Supremacy of Science

3. Why does science has a supposed supremacy?

→ Science is the public pursuit of truth. It is guided by publicly executed

experiments under controlled conditions. That it respects the human
condition. It can also elucidate our perceptions of right and wrong.
→ Science is knowledge. Knowledge itself is neutral. There is no instance
where ignorance is a better foundation for action than knowledge.

4. Why did Atkins say that it is uncomfortable?

→ The nonexistence of God. He might be wrong but there is no possible

evidence of the existence of God.
→ The world is complex, people long for something beyond the physical
world and they are confirmed in this belief by the authority of their
religious leaders, whatever their faith is.