To a greater or lesser degree, we trust the mapmaker, the encyclopedist, the chronicler, the journalist.
But only for so long as they are proved accurate. If a mapmaker supplies incorrect maps - incorrect in that (presumably) you test them and find they do not reflect observable reality, you change supplier and get new maps.
Likewise an encyclopaedia or historian insisting that Germany won WWII is unlikely to be trusted. And journalists... well, a slant is often expected from many of them, especially commentator/analysts, and/or selectivity in what is reported.
I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean by the 'philosophical support of science', but I suspect I agree that any philosophy cannot be scientifically verified. If you like, it's a different map space... as is that of faith. IMO, only the map of science can really be tested for validity in its depiction of reality, applicable to everyone; faith depicts terra incognita, and an individual version at that... and we can't, almost by definition, know if it is 'correct'. |
