Scientific thinking means different things to different people, but most often is thought of as empirical thought. “Truth”, too, is not a solid tangible thing. Empirical methods are not suited to finding the truth, and more than any other method. They are simply a better way of establishing certain proofs, which may or may not actually prove what they might appear to.
For instance, when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson pointed their horn antennae and discovered background “noise”, they were not trying to prove the Big Bang theory, nor did they initially realize that the noise was caused by a very small but measurable amount of heat in space, all around us. In fact, it didn’t prove the Big Bang theory, it merely proved that the space around the earth has a temperature of about 3 degrees above absolute zero.
So what was actually proven by using empirical thought? Nothing! At the time, these two were trying to figure out why there was background noise, regardless of where they turned their antennae. The only empirical thought they were using was strictly for that purpose, and even then, it wasn’t truly empirical. These men were engineers, after all, not scientists. Empirical thought was used later to verify their findings, but the discovery itself was made without this form of scientific thought.
Many, many other examples can be used, but the point is that science wouldn’t even exist without other thought methods. It would be a big stretch to think that no truth can be found without scientific thought, and all it takes is a single example to answer this question with a resounding, “NO!”.
