Science

[Rayschism]

Science doesn't know anything.

Yet it gave me this abolutely awesome computer by providing the materials that are used in the construction of the components that make it work.

So science knows nothing.

But but it gave me soda!

Science knows nothing.

Look all these cement and glass in these incredibly tall buildings that we used these awesome construction tools in these workman's toolbox to build them.

Meh, science knows nothing.

 

[bilby]

Science isn't the kind of entity that can 'know'.

Science can mean 'a method for finding out what is true'; or it can mean 'the body of knowledge obtained by the scientific method'.

To date, we have not yet found any reliable methodology for knowing things, other than science.

 

[Rayschism]

Science isn't the kind of entity that can 'know'.

Science can mean 'a method for finding out what is true'; or it can mean 'the body of knowledge obtained by the scientific method'.

To date, we have not yet found any reliable methodology for knowing things, other than science.

Hmm... let's see...

Sulfur. Charcoal. Guano equals kaboom.

But science can't know that.

Okay.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sulfur. Charcoal. Guano equals kaboom.

Yes, you know that. You're an entity.
You know that because of the results found through science, but science doesn't know that.

Like math. "Math" does not know that 2 +2 = 4. You, however, can use math to learn what 2 + 2 equals.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity.[1][2] In other words, it is the error of treating something that is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing. A common case of reification is the confusion of a model with reality: "the map is not the territory".

Reification is part of normal usage of natural language (just like metonymy for instance), as well as of literature, where a reified abstraction is intended as a figure of speech, and actually understood as such. But the use of reification in logical reasoning or rhetoric is misleading and usually regarded as a fallacy.

I do think the intent of the op was to be cute and fit in, nothing really bad or anything, but ...

The op is a failed joke for several reasons, one of which is the wording "science knows nothing," is too distracting since it is a reification. If there were actually some kind of chant from anti-science persons that could be used to mean "science has no value" or something similar, the op might make more headway.