>That's the problem with the article, and a lot of Trigg's ideas. He assumes that "science is done by people", "people are flawed", ergo "the output of science

>That's the problem with the article, and a lot of Trigg's ideas. He assumes that "science is done by people", "people are flawed", ergo "the output of science is flawed". And the output is flawed. Which is why science comes with a disclaimer 'to the best of our knowledge, this is how it works'. We can never know how the universe works, only come up with a model that predicts all results we see. Unless that is how you define 'knowing how something works'.