Quote:
thomastwo wrote
You are either unwilling or unable to read and comprehend. I said that somebody could have blind faith in science. Not that everybody places blind faith in science.
|
And I said it's not a thing you have blind faith in if you know what the hell it is. If you don't know what the scientific method is, then it's possible for you have faith in the folks who purport to know.
Science is not the least bit like religion, where the claims are generally not even knowable. No one can even begin to chart an alleged hell on a map or provide any verification for its existence. You have to take the claim on blind faith. You have no other choice, if you're going to believe it.
Now, if a whacked out astronomer or astrophysicists tells you the moon is made of cheese, there is a method for verifying his or her claim. It doesn't require belief to ascertain the facts, just knowledge of the body evidence available that will tell you what the moon is actually made of. Someone who blindly accepts that the moon is made of cheese is not actually putting his or her trust in science or the scientific method. That's what I've been trying to explain to you all this time. If you want to apply the method to learn the facts, the method is a reliable means of doing that.
Quote:
|
thomastwo wrote
But specifically you said that science was the only source of knowledge. I've given you two other examples.
Straight forwards question for you. Are logic and mathematics sources of knowledge? Yes or no.
|
Logic and mathematics are branches of the sciences, apparently. Davin has already shown us that they are.