Jinn

I think certain types of knowledge have more intrinsic value than other types of knowledge, especially when a discussion of the natural laws of the Universe are on the line. There is great value in personal experience and belief, but they are fallible and personal. They can't be extended to apply to all things, and they can't be repeatedly tested in a controlled way.

Science, on the other hand, is only valid when it is observable and repeatable in a controlled manner. For this reason, I hold it's 'worth' above anecdotes and beliefs of others, when they come head-to-head.

For the things that science cannot address due to their natural inobservability (supernatural occurrences, etc..), one's personal beliefs are probably the best bet. But in things that can be measured and quantified, science has no equal.

If someone approached me with something which ran orthogonal to current scientific theory, it'd better be a scientifically and naturalistically valid assertion. Someone who thinks they know 'better' than tested and re-tested scientific hypotheses is hovering very close to dangerous arrogance, and would be well-served to provide copious VERIFIABLE claims.

Many great scientific revelations came out of non-scientific philosophy, such as Einstein's 'mind-games' of "riding the wave of light" and "the compass". Until he was able to demonstrate them with sound scientific argument, however, they were just that - mind games.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel