Robert B. answered 11/17/21
Former Seminarian and Seminary Teacher
It can't be defended. You have pointed to its need for a foundation. That is the first lack it shows.
And I will bet you can't define 'science' in a way that eliminates more than one answer to many quesitons.
My favorite objection is that it is utterly unable to interpret itself.
If I solve an equation for how many boys to cut a lawn if this lawn is X acres and it takes 1 boy Y hours to trim an acre -- and I come up with a negative number or an improper fraction I have to redefine things in terms of man-hours. I also have boundary problems. How long to cut a 10-inch square area? well, you wouldn't use a boy or a mower!!.
But even where you might point to what is agree upon -- IS IT? Say, Quantum Mechanics
- 4.1Copenhagen interpretation
- 4.2Many worlds
- 4.3Quantum information theories
- 4.4Relational quantum mechanics
- 4.6Consistent histories
- 4.7Ensemble interpretation
- 4.8De Broglie–Bohm theory
- 4.9Quantum Darwinism
- 4.10Transactional interpretation
- 4.11Objective collapse theories
- 4.12Consciousness causes collapse (von Neumann–Wigner interpretation)
- 4.13Quantum logic
- 4.14Modal interpretations of quantum theory
- 4.15Time-symmetric theories