Scientists or Philosphers: To Whom Should We Trust?

Funny. This might be true. 

The problem is – we don't know anything, and we don't even know that we don't know anything.

This notification is really helpful. I really appreciate this. 

By the way, the original article signed as "...Dawkins..." without using an apostrophe. www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/DawkinsGodDelusionPlantingaReview.pdf

Now that I've read the first post you've made and not the just the title I'm going to elaborate on my previous post in response to you. What the Catholic is saying here is not that we should listen to philosophy over science or even the other way around. He is criticizing Dawkins for writing a whole book in which the chief arguments found within are philosophical and not scientific despite knowing bugger all about philosophy and thus doing an atrocious job at it. He is criticizing Dawkins for veering from his lane and crashing hard. This is a common criticism of Dawkins actually. My atheist philosophy professor in college lambasted Dawkins for being retarded at philosophy and even being purposely disingenuous in what he asserted. The example he gave was that apparently in his book (I haven't read it) he straw manned to an absolutely abominable degree Thomas Aquinas's cosmological argument for God to the point to where he had to have been purposely dishonest in doing so. 

But if we know this then we know something.

I think that philosophers are a justifiably sensitive bunch. Among non philosophers, especially scientists, there is an impression that philosophy is a junk discipline that is an exercise in hot air do to its material's inability to be tested for objective conclusions in the same way as say, science or math. As I once cynically (and rather ignorantly) put it, "it's just a bunch of people intellectually jerking themselves and each other off." There is a belief among scientists that science will one day find the answers to the questions that philosophy asks and will make the whole field obsolete. 

All of these characterizations of philosophy are unfair and patently ridiculous in my opinion, but this arrogant attitude makes many scientists think, "hey, I can do that. This isn't that hard," and jump into deep philosophical discussions in a shallow and subpar manner. My worst subject is Math. I would be an arrogant fool to dive deep and headlong into advanced mathematics, putting in the barest of effort to learn about these things, and talk nonsense about them to the face of mathematicians and think that my perspective is as valid as theirs because, "math is a junk subject anyways." But this is exactly what these scientists do with philosophy. And if these scientists go in and talk absolute bullocks about a subject they know little to nothing about then it is well within the rights of those actually knowledgeable about the subject to call them out on their stupidity.

This is a really good and decent argument. Edgar Allan Poe had quite similar critique arguments against mathematical logic.

It's also sad to hear about math. I don't understand math either. I guess I would if I had driven the different way. I preferred reading literature and comics. I think it's not a bad thing.

Just think about it: an average person also think that he can (like "YES WE CAN!") or that he's able to do it, but a honest scientist never has any over-ego level of selfishness.

My opinion is: it's bad that there are differentiation between people. It doesn't seem to be democratic. All people are equal. And the ones who disagree with it usually do everything to destroy anyone who disagree with them.