Scientism is a short sighted religion that cannot see beyond its vision.

Science's weakest link is the senses. Science hence needs a crutch. You need a crutch.

but you cannot deny what the senses tell you!
Tasting, hearing, seeing, feeling and smelling form perception and a large part of reality. My problem is the denial of these empirical facts over pre-concluded ideas. It's one thing to aspire beyond the senses but it's another to deny empirical evidence based on previous concluded notions. Science needs a crutch! the crutch of hope and vision... the crutch of intuition to make it delve into knowing the unknown knowns and further into knowing the unknown unknowns! but denying the Known Knowns is retrogressive don't you agree? of it is only by knowing that we can be sure we ... know!

known knowns are those things that are captive to the body of knowledge. for example - We all know that everest is the 'highest' mountain - that is in our collective body of knowledge but continued studies into polishing into what is 'highest' and whether it relates to tallest have revealed that while Everest is the highest mountain on earth above sea level.. mauna Kea is the 'tallest' mountain from it's base! we know mount mckinley is the highest summit elevation and we know chimborazo is the highest from the centre of the earth. all these are aspects of knowing the same thing! but in a deeper way. previous knowledge can only be extinguished by newer more polished knowledge creating exceptions in terms e.t.c.

there are no 'unknown knowns' since that on it's own is paradoxical but there are 'unknown unknowns'. Knowing is not scientific! it's human. Science is just a method of 'knowing' by using empirical evidence and like democracy it's the worst form or knowing except all others that have been tried before (feel free to quote me).

Masukuma,

What my senses tell me may not be what your senses tell you. I may not sense the same smoothness of a surface unlike one whose hands are supple (e.g. from the use of hand moisturizers). This goes to the other senses.

On that score and example, whose senses of touch can be relied upon to give "the accurate" scientific conclusion of the nature of the surface? Why?

Whose is to be denied?

If you build your case on the "strength of sense" your foundation is shakey. It will not stand the storm, the rigours of scrutiny.

That highlighted part sounds more like faith.

@masukuma has deep internal conflict. Consider what he's saying;

1. Human nature demands knowledge

2. All knowledge is not science

3. Science acknowledges 'unknown unknowns'.

4. Science has excluded other forms of knowing

Therefore science is inhibiting other aspects of human nature.

He neglects his own advice on 'morality matrix'. But if we take his advice we can see that science is a tool to aid whatever forms of knowledge that are available. What @masukuma calls 'crutches' are other forms of knowledge - 'vision', 'intuition'.

That is, science helps to harness vision, intuition, revelation and other forms of knowing.

science just bases it's conclusions of facts... empirical facts.

it does not imply that it's the only way of knowing... it is it's way of knowing and from the tiny instance of time where we have accepted it as a form of knowing it has not failed us.