SCIENCE CAN'T SEE BEYOND ITS ASSUMPTIONS

How you know controls what you know.  For example, I might say, "The ONLY facts I accept are those events happening in Tampa.  If I see it in Tampa, it's a fact; but if it happens someplace else, then it is not a fact and it is not true."   I might call this the Tampa-truth concept.  

By this definition of a fact (I might even call it Tampa-truth science), I will reject anything happening in St. Petersburg or any other place in the universe.  

Indeed, I might say to my friend living in St. Pete, "Well, you may believe things you observe in St. Pete are true, but I know that the only facts are those things that can be observed objectively in Tampa.  If you need to believe the things happening in St. Petersburg are true then that's your personal belief.  But I live by facts established by the Tampa-truth concept."

I might even challenge my friend who doubts that all truth resides in Tampa to prove to me that something in St. Pete could be true.  But, and here's the real issue, I probably would require my friend to use the Tampa-truth science!  

"How you know" determines "what you can know" about reality

You can see that using a particular test for truth is what really controls what you accept as real about the world.  

The question of whether there might be truth outside of Tampa would never even be asked.  This is because if I accepted the Tampa-truth concept as the ONLY standard of truth, the Tampa-truth concept would actually put blinders on my mind and prevent me from even wondering if there might be some MORE (not different) truth some place in the world.

Does following the Tampa-truth concept really prove that ONLY those things happening in Tampa are true.  No, it cannot. 

If I say "only those things that happen in Tampa are true," I am actually creating an assumption about the nature of truth and the world. 

And, of course, my St. Petersburg friend would be wise to ask me to use the Tampa-truth concept to prove that the Tampa-truth concept yields the COMPLETE truth.  I could not. The best I could do is say that it seems to work. 

I would have to admit that my Tampa-truth science is only an assumption about how I can know the truth and that what I do, if I am honest, is simply admit that I just ignore all other information and claims about how others know.

If I was, be some chance, of a mind to wonder, "Gee, might there be more truth outside of Tampa," I would be taking the first steps to see that the Tampa-truth standard is a limitation on seeking and knowing ALL the truth.

Do assumptions hinder science? 

Yes, science assumes that truth ONLY exists in a certain way of seeing events in the world.  It's just like  Tampa-truth science.

Consider the following statement:

Facts are only those things shown to be observable repeatedly by scientific experiment or the five senses.

Simple logic compels the conclusion that if a truth is, in fact, not observable by the above test, it will be rejected by those people who claim to know only on the basis of the above test. 

But the statement that truth is based ONLY on such a test has itself never passed its own truth test.  It is merely an assumption. Actual events in the real world show it is a false assumption. The Holy Spirit imparts knowledge showing that it is a false assumption.  

Is it possible that truth exists beyond the assumptions of science?  Ask four questions.

You would know what is beyond  these hills if someone told you.