Science is the sole source of evidence Evidence is a loaded word in that it has a specific scientific meaning. Information is less so. As sources of informatio

Science is the sole source of evidence Evidence is a loaded word in that it has a specific scientific meaning. Information is less so. As sources of information, are gut instincts to be dismissed? Do you wait for a scientific analysis to be peer-published before running away from danger? Are traditions to be dismissed? Many forms of traditional lore have been validated through subsequent scientific study: are they valueless prior? Law is largely opine and tradition with appeals to random existential and other fallacies, not science, yet does generally fine in guiding human behavior in many societies. Similarly, most people don't know the law, they 'get a sense of it'. Should they cease to live because they don't have time for a law degree? You are table-thumping on formal and reductive reasoning yet conveniently ignoring the broader biological, physical and indeed scientific reality that we have an imperfect understanding of the world. This does not dismiss in any way the achievements of science, and my original comment was made to encourage people to laugh at our folly in making great rational advances while missing the forest for the trees. Your comments are, sadly, while probably well meaning, providing mostly nought but a great example.