[GourmetDan]

"What you call fallacy I call science and the latter has far more depth and respect than the former."

Again, science is based on the fallacy of equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism. This means that the latter has no more depth or respect than the former.

Using the fallacy of argumentum ad populum is not evidence of 'depth' or 'respect'.

"The difference being, of course, that the latter will self-correct while the former never will."

The latter will never 'self-correct' either because the underlying assumption of philosophical naturalism never changes.

You are confused.

[Filo]

You are confused.

Not in the least. I understand without flaw the concepts behind science and the concepts behind faith. You are trying to tear down the former from ignorance generated by the latter.

Your attribution of "fallacy" is just that and nothing more. In reality there is no fallacy.

The latter will never 'self-correct' either because the underlying assumption of philosophical naturalism never changes.

One has nothing to do with the other. Philosophical naturalism as you call it is reality. The universe is guided by rules and laws and nothing else.

Yes, I understand that you refuse to accept that and that you are, in fact, probably incapable of understanding it but that's not my problem; it is yours. If you believe so strongly that there is something more then surely you can provide proof.

But, of course, you can't.

Meanwhile, within the framework of reality (your philosophical naturalism) science readily self-corrects and is almost always right - in the end.