Science ends in meaninglessness

Has the realization made you less reliant on science and language, Dean? Does coming out of the dark mean you have found other means of balancing your checkbook and communicating with people?

the problem is not that science works or that we may be reliant on it
but
that its explanations as to how/why it works ends in meaninglessness
i mean with your approach you would be happy with the ptolemaic model of the universe-it worked good enough for them
i mean you just insisting
hey it works
and not questioning the explantions would have kept man in the caves
your approach is so unscientific - and puts you in the power of the explanations makers
your approach would have kept you in the darkness of the cave-where scientists are still until dean showed them to not be beguiled into believing the explanation given as to why it works-you seem to think that because it work then the explanation as to why it works is correct
dean showing that all explanation end in meaninglessness starts the process of coming into the light - and stops science explanations from becoming nothing but ideology -or worse something akin to religious dogma used to keep the people under control and ignorant

You're conveniently overlooking one minor detail: man did progress beyond the Ptolemiac model of the universe. Not subscribing to theories of meaninglessness seems not to have prevented science from overthrowing the ideologically-imposed geocentric model of the universe. For all the apocalyptic visions you're threatening will come to pass if we don't embrace the light... science has been dealing with them for centuries without your help. As you're tacitly telling us here, you're no less subject to science and language as the next guy; all you're doing is calling it "meaninglessness." If you feel you need to change the name in order to feel better about being reliant on science and language, go right ahead; but that's your problem, not ours.

One of the less minor corollaries of the scientific methods is the concept of "multiple hypothees" which nicely negates Deans single arrow of direction for science.
SCience has realized that, in the realm of the mathematical theoretical, and in the predictive, that multiple correct results are possible. Perhaps only 3 out of 81 answers (necause of multidimensional analyses) may have relevance..

Deans insistance in expanding his assertion of measninglessness to QM shows a deep misunderstanding of QM. Even though the arguments rage, we have waay better understandings of how electrons move about a molecular nucleus and therefore how a chemical bond is propogated. QM has also has expanded our undersatnding s of nuclear decay and quantitative aspects of radioisotopic decay.
Once Deam gets done with his baseless assertions -he is without pants. Perhaps we should remind him that criticism has standing only when its based on an understanding of that which is being criticized.

Meaninglessness imples insignificance, Just the opposite is what history shows. Every significant adaption of a new technology had begat a revolution of a sort. I believe were just in the early skirmishes of one now. The biological revolution will have profound impacts on every aspect of human life on the planet, both good and evil. Its anything but meaningless.