Most don't know what science is or how science operates.

Con argues that I have not provided an inkling of evidence. But Con has provided that evidence. Con could not easily articulate the meaning of science nor was Con aware that there are only two methods by which science operates. Con has validated my very argument. which is that most are intentionally ignorant about what science is and how it MUST operate. Con confirms my argument by presenting three official definitions of science that are all wrong and lucks into a technically correct definition from an "amateur", which validates my whole point that the system is rigged and the powers that be are brainwashing the masses by intentionally deceiving people in order to keep them enslaved to the worldview of the elites. Science is nothing more than the pursuit of factual or valid knowledge. "Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know" Science is not limited to the natural world. And Con doesn't get to define 'social' world, especially when relying upon a hilarious amateur's definition. As was already explained there are ONLY two types of knowledge and therefore must be two methods of science in order to determine and validate both kinds of knowledge. How old is the earth? The sun? The moon? The Grand Canyon? There is no way to empirically know such answers yet that does not relegate science to silence. Science can and does have a role in attempting to determine such answers so that we may have some comfort of trust that our conclusions and beliefs are valid. And validating non-empirical phenomena requires the systematic application of the scientific rules of forensics as well as the rules and laws of logic. Philosophy and journalism are most definitely types of science. Both are pursuits that attempt to discover and articulate knowledge, be it empirical knowledge or merely valid knowledge. The fact the Con repeatedly fails to understand that both types of knowledge (truth and validity) are worthy of human pursuit and that science must operate in accord with the kind of knowledge it is pursuing again confirms and validates my argument that Con, like most, simply does not understand how science operates. Con makes the false argument that I have ignored reliability, accuracy and precision while insisting there is only one method of science. But if Con had read clearly or had even an elementary understanding of the operations of science, he/she would know that I clearly embrace empiricality and the scientific method when determining a posteriori knowledge. Science demands an empirical approach in order to determine empirical knowledge. Yet Con has no defense for the role of science regarding a priori knowledge and instead Con demands we limit what knowledge can be pursued when dealing with what Con calls "non-scientific pursuits of knowledge". The hilarious irony of those words when taken at their base meaning = the non-knowledgeable pursuit of knowledge". Ha. The fact that Con fails to understand the nature of science, which Con apparently does with some prideful glee without any real awareness that he/she so consistently validates my original premise, reveals the plantation mentality of your typical apologist for the delusional High Priests of this new Dark Age. Con has been conned into believing he/she is scientific yet he/she rejects the two natures of knowledge, confuses the purpose of science with the workings of science, subjectively limits what knowledge science may pursue, and denies the ultimate goal of science which is to determine truth. Con apparently is unaware that science is premised upon the idea that we live in a rational nature that follows rules based on an intelligent order (Socrates). Con boasts of his great embrace of the scientific method as the end-all of what science may purse, just as Con was taught to do (again confirming my premise). But it is obvious that Con either doesn't understand the difference between an empirical fact and a valid theory or simply doesn't want to understand. If Con is incapable of scientifically determining what is and what is not valid, a conclusion only determinable via logical rationalization, because Con was never taught the rules and laws of logic, then Con, like the great majority, will ultimately never care if their arguments are rationale. People must be taught how to reason or reason dies. And the only thing that prospers in an unscientific environment, such as ours, are lies and deceptions.