Is science more powerful than invariantology?
Where do you find any ideas about some conflict between science and variability? The burden of philosophic agendas is too onerous for science, which is certainly not king of the hill in the thought realm. Science is a daily, plodding exploration of empirical phenomena. It is fallible. Religions can crush it, and have.
Is something that makes sense and is useful more powerful than a meaningless crackpot philosophy?
YOU be the judge!
I had to look invariantology up and still donāt entirely know what is meant here, but I found the identical question asked over here: answers.yahoo.com/question/index ā¦ 609AAiPkoF
Reading all the google links, Iām not sure how science is different?
A science is merely art, which is a development of experience in a certain area.
After a little research, I find that this OP raises good philosophical questions. I interpret these to be about the mental conflict between constants or scientific ācertaintiesā and variables or experience of changes. Am I off base, Stella?
More powerful is an odd one. Science is superior epistemologically, but it probably demands more of people that they can understand it. Something that is easier to believe is often more powerful than what it is wise to believe.
I wouldnāt read too much into it folks, stellaās a regular poster of āvariant is the order of invariants!!ā and meaningless oneliners like that.
I usually quarantine his posts but seeing as youāve all replied, Iāll let you mull over this one a bit more 
Science is the king of the block. Science say jump, you jump.