Well science adjusts to pressure of politics and society. So nothing is infallable

Wouldn't that make religion just one conduit for natural human curiosity?

the scientific method doesn't care about politics, the scientist does

In ancient times people thiught rains came from a god. Which caused people to be sated with the fear, but then ask how.

Scientists put out the studies. Some aspects of science are heavily influenced while others, not so much.

Anything made by flawed man, is bound to have flaws.

the scientific method doesn't care about politics, it isn't heavily influenced

the scientist is human, flawed and corruptible

there is good science, there is poor science

Scientific method can be flawed by those applying it.

that is not a criticism of the method

that is again a criticism of the person

Putting in flawed data, adapting the results.

The scientific method is only as good as the one using it.

there is a reason we try to review science and see if results can be reproduced

I'm not disagreeing with you

Though what good is that if another flawwed person with the same influences does it? Or uses the same flawed data?

but you are not really countering my argument that there is knowledge and there is ignorance - that you want to call one spiritualism does not magically make it outside of future observation technology

then you produce poor science, and someone else will come along and produce something better

not really a criticism of the method

Lol. Your failing to see the point but whatever. Stand on that hill.

As for future tech to observe things like post death conciousness, that is severe whataboutism. Especially since modern materialist scientists have no interest. Its doubtful future ones will.

your point did not address my criticism of your notion that some things cannot be observed

how is it whataboutism?!

science does not claim to know everything at this instant

religion often does

Your assuming the future will change where material will care.

Actually a good part of religion is that no one has all the answers

why should I not assume the future will change?

science brings progress, it is ludicrous to assume stagnation

Why should you assume something that massive would?

Its not stagnation.

Its a core principle about materialism

you say something will never happen, I say it might

It all boils to whataboutism

where does your certainty stem from?

Until the pendulum moves

it boils down to you asserting something without evidence

and me questioning this

it is that simple

it is not whataboutism

Your asserting something as well. That materialism will suddenly care about something unobservable, and falls fully under spiritualism. Which is contrary to what materialism is at its core. Without that care tech will never develop. Ergo, your assertions are far more grandios than mine, and falls fully under whataboutism fallacies.

how can you know it is unobservable?