I think stuff like this should give those who consciously or unconsciously believe in "Scientism", the notion that the only real truths and facts are empirical scientific ones, some pause. We don't really see the world as it is, only as it is presented to the conscious mind. We can't really know if the order we think we see in the universe is really "out there", as most people usually assume, or, as Kant believed, is simply the result of out our minds/brains order order our sensory perceptions. We BELIEVE that certain statistical methods are a valid way to determine "fact" from subjective anecdote and bias, but is that really true?
Well, biased or not, I take science over magical beings that are their own son any day.
That is a very edgy and simplistic dismissal of almost 2000 years of theology and philosophy, there.
Kant was wrong however. Inher it in as he did the medieval sceptical assumption that reality is 'behind' what we see. Reality is nothing more than the ground of the logical structure of experience - and a structure that cannot be reduced to experience or equivocated with it. The phenomenalist assumption is based on a genetic fallacy that confuses the conditions for knowing something (epistemic possibility) with the conditions for something being the case (truth). Science is one kind of activity which clarifies and exposes the logical structure of the world, there is no deep metaphysical problem here. Scientism is better opposed on realist grounds, rather than phenomenalist ones: idealism is a very poor way of being anti-reductionist. Not stupid 'behind the viel' realism whinch has mostly been an idealist strawman, but a simple ordinary sort of realism which says 'if has properties, it exists' - taking this to be a definition of 'exists' rather than an argument.
Haha. He doesn't believe in superstition from people thousands of years ago. So close-minded.
If your point is that science is not as reliable as some people give it credit for, I am totally with you. With that said, it sounds like you are suggesting that there is a way of knowing things that is more reliable than, or at least as reliable as, science. Is that what you are saying? If so, then what and how?
An issue with scientistic types is that they think that scientific truths are the ONLY truths, and that other kinds of truths that do not overlap with scientific truths, like subjective personal truths, literary/mythological truths, and spiritual truths, either do not exist or are not really truths. With the later two there is reluctance in our modern secular society to see myth and spiritual experiences as "truths" because of the modern cultural struggle against religious fundamentalists who wrongly treat them as scientific truths.
The terms you are using sound like they could be interpreted many different ways. What would you say is the difference between a scientific truth and any of the other truths you are describing, and how can the other ones be known/detected?