"Not so. The facts of science are external to the flow of logic—in the same way that particular values for x are external to mathematical statements for x.
No. Science is a body of knowledge and understanding generated by reason. As such, it is properly the fluid, since it is the whole thing that is science.
"all reason necessarily follows a premise. Reason can never stand alone. You’ve got to start with something solid to stand on. What is the basis for the beginning of man’s reason? At best it’s mere subjectivity. Faith is the substrate for reason."
Reason is a logical process that stands on it's own. It is not dependent on any being, or any premise for validity.
Faith is believing in what someone has said, or written regardless of the reason for doing so.
“Science is a body of knowledge and understanding generated by reason. As such, it is properly the fluid, since it is the whole thing that is science.”
I think we need to acknowledge that the aim of science is to discover facts, or particulars. That is, logic (reason) exists prior to facts, and is used as a medium to obtain and to propagate those facts.
Clearly, the analogy portraying science as the raft (particular, concrete, a posteriori facts) carried by the current of logic is more accurate. (It’s best not to try to hijack an analogy, because one’s familiarity with it is not likely to be as extensive as that of its author.)
“Reason is a logical process that stands on it’s own. It is not dependent on any being, or any premise for validity.”
Any particular line of reasoning must have a premise. But particular reasoning does not give general validity to reason itself. As I have stated, reason can be considered valid ultimately through faith alone.