[fiatjaf]

Science describes the material portion of the world, and ignores the rest, or says: "the rest will be discovered as having a material foundation in the future and by that time we will describe it, we will not bother to describe it now".

This is a quite big assumption, and has none to do with describing "the world as it is".

[Dylan16807]

That assumption does not exist. Science will measure and model things without material foundation just as readily. Unless 'material' means 'able to be measured'. Science doesn't really putt around with things you can't measure.

[lutusp]

> Science describes the material portion of the world, and ignores the rest ...

Let's say that science doesn't try to analyze those parts of the world not accessible to empirical observation. That could be described as modesty or reticence.

> This is a quite big assumption, and has none to do with describing "the world as it is".

Those who do try to describe the non-material world have a pretty terrible record for reliable results.

[splawn]

"ignores the rest"

by "rest", I assume you are a scientologist talking about theatans.

"This is a quite big assumption, and has none to do with describing "the world as it is"."

I disagree, my favorite thing about the scientific method is that it does its best to drop assumptions. I am not a scientist, but resort to this kind of thinking when I have to debug code. Suggest a better way and I will try it out.