Again, this is in response to the friend, who asked me the question posted in the previous article.
In response to your explanation regarding evolution of fact from speculation, I'd like to add (in case you only mentioned this implicitly) that it is not merely gratification of our craving for logic, which results in acceptance of scientific principles. It is based on the independent observation of several individuals separated spatially and temporally. When application of any scientific idea consistently points to the same outcome (assuming a reasonable degree of accuracy of measurement) as a result of the application of those ideas and also if the same idea can predict with confidence outcomes for similar events and then measured against such predictions with satisfying accuracy only then people in the scientific community begin to give weight to it and begin accepting it. If, with the passage of time, the idea continues to hold true, it would begin to be considered as a fact or an underlying law of nature. I agree that equations tend to be idealistic mathematical models of the exact practical phenomenon, but depending on the degree of accuracy you associate with the outcome of an event, you can for all purposes assume it to hold true. Later, if someone finds out that the particular equation breaks down under certain specific conditions, it would not mean that the whole process of scientific investigation that was employed to bring about the previous equation went to waste. As a matter of fact, such new cases only associate limits of conditions under which the equation holds true. A better equation that can take into account a more diverse range of conditions would probably be preferred as a more accurate measure for a wider range of phenomenon, but would not make the old equations obsolete (for the cases, they were known to hold true).
I would take a different approach with the acceptance of any theory. I would be a skeptic in believing in any theory from the outset. First of all, I must establish here that by theory I mean a respected scientific principle, which has over a prolonged period of time demonstrated itself to hold true and has also been corroborated exhaustively against various predictions it claimed to make. Otherwise, I would only consider a new idea that attempts to explain a certain phenomenon as a hypothesis or a conjecture at best. So, when I would accept something, I'd be confident that what I have accepted can be demonstrated at any time anywhere under the conditions, which are necessary part of that idea and which define its domain. I would not just give a religious text benefit of doubt and consider it beyond my logical perception. If there is any truth in it, its advantages must be clearly demonstrated based on thorough empirical evidence. Any, dogmatic claim, which cannot be justified based on the above mentioned criterion cannot be accepted merely by suggesting a weakness in our own perception. I would consider it intellectual dishonesty. It has to go through the same process of skepticism and scrutiny as any other piece of information presented to me for acceptance.
As far as logic is concerned, it is based on extremely basic premises and axioms as logical rules, which can be used in conjunction to construct complex logical structure. One can certainly and should certainly question such axioms, before embarking on a rational journey, but if such axioms can be broken down into extremely simple constructs like using rules of equality, associativity, commutativity depending on its application then that would make our problem simpler. Of course, there would come a point, where one has to accept something to be correct or incorrect on the basis of one's beliefs, but it is better to limit oneself to jumping over these small puddles of faith instead of accepting something wholesale and walking over the water.
What is fact is not just what we are being told through consciousness. A fact is a fact is a fact. A truth is a truth is a truth. Of course there are certain issues where objective conclusions cannot be made. However, in case of scientific observation, one can ascertain with higher confidence a bigger slice of truth if not the whole truth. In cases of moral judgment, objectivity cannot be governed by some universally laid scientific laws. At that point, one does need to use one's own conscience and consciousness to identify an issue as good, bad or neither. Religious morality generally tends to lie in that zone. However, the issue is that the moral objectivity cannot be achieved simply by accepting an article of faith or dogma and then judging something based on it as right or wrong. It has to be done on a simpler premise or principle, using which, one can gradually extend the domain of influence of one's moral reasoning. Even though the selection of such a principle is an arduous task, its appeal to conscience and its consistency with various difficult moral questions can be verified in a much easier manner than following a long set of dogmatic instructions, whose apparent principle or basis seems elusive. However, in case a certain religion does claim to have a moral basis, based on which various moral questions have been answered, then one can try to follow the response to such moral questions in that particular religion and try to see if there is any inconsistency or inherent contradiction between its two judgments (taking all possible contexts into account) to give it a fair chance. Now, if all comes clean in the end, then it is upto the person to accept the message of that religion as consistent as well as acceptable. For example, if a religion or dogma bases everything on hate and then derives morality based on it, then even though it does so with meticulous precision to avoid inconsistency, one can still reject the basic premise of such a dogmatic belief or religion.
Following religious path and a breakthrough or disaster that may thus ensue from it cannot be solely attributed as a consequence of subscribing to such a path alone. There can be several other explanations, which can provide better insight about the causes of any particular event. Unless an understanding of such causes is obtained, the belief in such a path cannot be simply accepted. Texts by Newton, Einstein etc. did vary but only in details and only under certain circumstances and conditions as I have mentioned above. Otherwise, under regular conditions, they do give virtually the same results. One cannot dismiss Newton, merely because Einstein's Theory explains gravitational effects over longer distances better, similarly Einstein's theory cannot be dismissed merely because it breaks down at a quantum scale. It can be perceived as only a part of the true picture, with some missing pieces, but the parts it does explain, and predict and corroborate with observation cannot be called contradictory. Only in the missing pieces can one find differences (contradictions) among different well established scientific theories, but one has to see there are huge common ground between them as well.
Besides, when you talk about a particular text, you perhaps again mean accepting the text as a whole, instead of scrutinizing its various aspects, which are independent of each other individually and only accepting that particular portion, which can be explained and derived from a few set of general principles, which you did choose on your own after a prolonged duration. Of course, even those principles may change as a person ages and therefore, it is a good idea to keep one's mind open to healthy skepticism and criticism and one should continue to test one's own sets of premises and principles to identify if a change has transpired.
