[PatrickHenry]

But what is the reason for you separate category.

If you're asking why I put knowledge obtained from revelation and faith in a different catagory from all the rest, I've answered that in a few prior posts. Check out: 94, 293, and 303.

[cornelis]

Checkin it out.

[cornelis]

Thanks. At 93 certainty is held as a criterium for true knowledge.

Certainty is nice, but if we value it too highly, we wouldn't have politics. It excludes too much of the past and future. Some certainty is found in the order of physical cause and effect and in the order of mathematics. Objectivity is also nice, but this limits knowledge to what is verifiable right now. Things that are going to happen is outside of its scope, unless they can also happen right now. Objectivity of this kind is very exclusive. It may be that your criterium for something called "scientific knowledge" interferes with an understanding of what knowledge includes. Additionally, theological knowledge is not limited to revelation. Neither is revelation exclusive of history.

At 293 you suggest,that 303

[cornelis]

At 293, mistakes turn out to be a good excuse to understand better. The abuse of faith is as rampant as the abuse of reason.

[cornelis]

At 303, you cite a papal view that "There exist two realms of knowledge" which do not conflict.

There are two ways these two soures of knowledge coexist or do not conflict:

Either they are (a) part of a dualistic world where they never interact or (b) they are integral and harmonious.

The first view is not Catholic, but it appears to be the view you would prefer.