@Shimon Nodel To be sure, I would never impugn anyone�s faith, trust, testament, emunah (whatever word you want to use, the essence is the same). I was merely pointing out the difference between a faith-based and scientific method of inquiry. Without getting too much into the epistemological thickets, let�s take a famous and neutral example. In the Classical world it was assumed that all swans are white. So what is one to do when confronted with a black swan (yes, they do in fact exist)? A follower of the scientific method will have to admit that the fundamental postulate (all swans are white) is no longer tenable and will discard it thus shifting the paradigm. However, someone who believes in the infallibility of the fundamental postulate (whether through faith or testimony, etc.) will have to explain away the black swan, e.g. the postulate is metaphorical, admits an exception, the black swan is not really black, etc., etc.. It is similar to your example of trusting the pilot will land the plane safely�it only takes one plane crash to demolish this supposition (problem of induction). All of this is to say that scientific method and religion are fundamentally incompatible and cannot be reconciled without making a category mistake�never twain shall meet. To someone with emunah it should never matter that science claims that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, or that Paleo-Hebrew looks suspiciously similar to the much older Phoenician or Proto-Canaanite, or whether there are textual inconsistencies or scribal errors in ancient texts. This category mistake is why the word �talmudic� acquired the pejorative connotation in the secular world�the function of Talmud is not to overturn the testament that is assumed to be infallible but to reconcile it with any fact that is contrary to it.
