Conversely, the scientific method has no human warmth to it. It doesn't give us much of a mechanism to build better societies given our human flaws. As an examp

Conversely, the scientific method has no human warmth to it. It doesn't give us much of a mechanism to build better societies given our human flaws. As an example: take the death of a loved one. The scientific method tells us "shit happens for no reason". The golden rule tells us to comfort our companion. Truth is a fine thing, but there are things in our experience that aren't limited to simple veracity of facts. And just like there are people out there who disagree on what the golden rule means, so too are there people who disagree on the scientific method - I've lost count of the number of times that I've had to say here on HN that the scientific method extends beyond 'test the null hypothesis'. > it justifies anything and nothing, depending on what attributes of the other person you choose to imagine yourself having. Only if you apply it in a flawed or superficial manner. Heuving's example of "I'd like someone to punch me in the face" is a clear example of this. The scientific method has equally poor results if you apply it in a flawed or superficial manner. In any case, regardless of opinion on which is better, they're both far more important to us as humans than atomic theory :)