Some thoughts on what I do...
I find epistemology -- the study of how we know things -- to be very interesting. I also am interested in the underlying assumptions that shape the way people see the world and live their lives. I've thought about the differences and similarities between science and religion as cosmologies, i.e. the different ways that people know -- or even define -- truth.
Recently, I have been reading The Road Less Traveled, by M. Scott Peck. Peck is quite opinionated, and not shy about expressing them. I disagree with some of the things he says. He has a tendancy to define a word in a certain way, in order to discuss what generally is an interesting concept, but then insist that his is the only true definition of the word. (He does this with "love," for one.) On the other hand, I think that he has some surprising insights into many things. One of them is science, or more accurately, scientists.
Science... is a worldview of considerable complexity with a number of major tenets. Most of these major tenets are as follows: the universe is real, and therefore a valid object for examination; it is of value for human beings to examine the universe; the universe makes sense -- that is, it follows certain laws and is predictable; but human beings are poor examiners, subject to superstition, bias, prejudice, and a profound tendency to see what they want to see rather than what is really there; consequently, to examine and hence understand accurately, it is necessary for human beings to subject themselves to the discipline of scientific method. The essence of this discipline is experience, so that we cannot consider ourselves to know something unless we have actually experienced it; while the discipline of scientific method begins with experience, simple experience is not to be trusted; to be trusted, experience must be repeatable, usually in the form of an experiment; moreover, the experience must be verifiable, in that other people must have the same experience under the same circumstances.
I don't believe I have ever heard a clearer delineation of the nature and limitations of science. Because implicit in this definition are limitations. One is that one may have experiences that are not repeatable or verifiable. Science says these experiences are not to be trusted, i.e. that they are not scientific. But are they necessarily untrue? Or, perhaps the more pertinent question is, are they without value? Peck later indicates that he doesn't think so... It is an interesting discussion, but I won't get into it here.
One more idea which struck me:
One thing to suggest that science... represents an improvement, an evolutionary leap, over a number of other world views, is its international character. We speak of the worldwide scientific community. And it is beginning to approach a true community, to come considerably closer than the Catholic Church, which is probably the next closest thing to a true international brotherhood. Scientists of all lands are able, far better than most of the rest of us, to talk to each other. To some extent they have been successful in transcending the microcosm of their culture. To some extent they are becoming wise.
Well, everyone likes to be told that they are wise. Scientists will especially enjoy it if the person saying it also provides objective evidence that it is so. Still, being a scientist, aware of my human propensity for bias, I do not know how much truth there is in what he says. But I do think it is an interesting viewpoint, which I will agree with until I see evidence to the contrary.