I do not embrace science as the most certain source of knowledge.
Why stop with divine revelation? When you reject science and the scientific method there are so many other sources of "knowledge" to choose from: magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, aching bunions, Ouija boards, anecdotes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, black cats, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, tea leaves, hoodoo, voodoo, and all sorts of other weird stuff.
And if you reject science, just what method are you going to use to differentiate between these sources of "knowledge?"
And if you reject science, just what method are you going to use to differentiate between these sources of "knowledge?"
Couldn't have said it better myself.
The answer is that in doing so, you are moving away from 'all ideas treated equally' where the proof is external, empirical validation, and into the realm (usually) of the personal--where *trust* and *belief* are the currency of the realm.
Three points follow:
1. yes, Yes, YES~~!! It is *TRUE* that people have made and continue to make all KINDS of mistakes by relying on such intuitions, fancies, and the like. However, it is not correct that relying on these rules *MUST* uniformly be false.
2. It is true that for discovering uniformities and trends in physical operations, such insights tend to SUCK. But many of the, umm, err, questions or quandries addressed by those types of knowledge are not primarily insight into regularities in the physical world which may be exploited, but insight into control of one's own impulses or of moral suasion.
3. Both of the points above are something of red herrings. The OTHER objection to using other types of knowledge in preference to the scientific method is that "how do you determine which fairy-tale to believe? Just choosing to play favorites is not logically consistent. So there, QED, neener neener, etc." But the other forms of knowledge never claimed to be based on savoir, but instead on connaître -- they weren't claiming to be logical in the FIRST place.
Long-winded mode off.
Cheers!