While I suppose this is intended as to be a helpful point of view, it is the kind of rhetoric that gives credence to those with unexamined beliefs to have more faith in there beliefs and that that truth is just a point of view. I’m not going to spend the morning refuting every part of it. But here are some of the issues.
Why This Is Bad Rhetoric:
Good Reasoning Requires But the argument uses
|
|
|
|
Clear definitions |
Shifts meaning of faith and truth |
|
Logical coherence |
Contradictions (science is both trusted and unreliable) |
|
Falsifiable claims |
Subjective anecdotes |
|
Avoiding fallacies |
Straw man, false equivalence, appeal to ignorance |
|
Separation of subjective vs objective truth |
Blends perception with reality |
It’s compelling storytelling, but weak epistemology.
It uses emotionally resonant examples to downplay the rigor of scientific reasoning—while claiming to defend it.
My focus is to understand what we know an how we can know it and to converge on truth... not show the foundation of everything is faith. What has impressed me endlessly about science (I was trained and worked as a scientist for over a decade) was the rigor and reproducibility, the ability to reproduce endlessly the results of experiments with increasing accuracy. There is another thread somewhere where the four kinds of investigation of science are discussed... yes, you must use the correct approach to the right problems.
This is the kind of rhetoric which folks that do not understand it point to and say, see even among the intellectuals truth is just faith.
