So, how's your epistemology doing these days?

Some people get really hung up on things that can't be described by scientific analysis. Having said that, I have been written off by everyone of said persons. I believe the internet would tell me that I have "lost nerd points". Good; I wasn't really interested in talking to them anyway.

Scientific reason is a good way to understand a lot of the way we perceive the world. It also churns out lots of useful and entertaining observational writing.

It is, of course, also a system of belief, governed by certain assumptions. Science is good, just as any other epistemological system is good, only if its subscribers understand its underpinnings. I've seen some really hideous diatribe flying around that shows me how many people are unfamiliar with the foundations of their belief systems. Let's take a look at such an argument and see if we can't figure out what's going wrong. It'll be fun, I promise.

Evolutionist: Given a glut of fossil evidence, the need to get a new flu shot every year and certain South American salamanders, it's pretty obvious that all life evolved from one molecule, synthesized by random chance a long time ago.

Creationist: Well, the Bible says God managed the life-creation job in six days and possibly some change, so you must be missing something.

Evolutionist: I don't have to explain things so that they work out to the tune of what your god says. If I did, I'd have to do it to the satisfaction of what every god says--
STOP! Up until now, we have a fairly reasonable argument on the part of our hypothetical evolutionist. Why? His admittedly scientific understanding of things puts him well within his rights to believe that, as far as the universe is concerned, what you see is what you get. Good. Given certain observable phenomena (bones, changing sicknesses, etc.), he arrives at his conclusion, and that's how a scientific line of thought goes. He doesn't have to deal with anyone's god who isn't readily observable. That's how science works. Let's see where things go south.
--'sides, there is no god and I can prove it. I don't have any evidence to prove that there is a god, therefore, there is no god.

Oh man! Did anyone catch the license on that fallacy of denying the antecedent, or did she go by too quick? By its own rules, scientific reasoning must be rigorously logical to hold water. Here's a parallel argument. If it's raining, the street is wet. It isn't raining, therefore the street is not wet. Do you see how the negation of the antecedent is insufficient to deny the consequent? I hope so.

So here's how our conversation will inevitably wind down, proceeding from this point.
Creationist: There is so a god.
Evolutionist: Nuh-uh.
Creationist: Is so.
Evolutionist: Is not.
Creationist: You're stupid.
Evolutionist: No, you're stupid.

Boy, that's a productive line of reasoning. We'll sure learn a lot from anything that comes from either side of this. The reason that this argument can but nothing but unproductive is that one party has violated the constraints of logic. Let's see how the argument might break down in a subtley different way.

E: I have no observable evidence that demonstrates categorically the presense of a god in the universe. I therefore conclude that there is no god.
C: But there must be a god; where did all this intricate stuff come from otherwise?
E: Machinations of probability, my good man. That's all I need to explain anything. Here, prove to me that there's a god.
C: Ok--
Whoah! Easy there, cowboy! Nothing that follows can be productive; I promise. As soon as the scientifically-minded sceptic lays down his favorite line, "here, prove [it]", you're trapped playing his game. Effectively, you have to stand on your own platform, but support it with different assumptions. Well, you can't do that, and you'll naver be able to; a framework of reasoning can stand only on its own assumptions.

What then is to be done? How do we have this argument? Well, the short answer is that we don't. Logic is a beautiful tool, but the only things it can prove beyond doubt are p's and q's. Any argumentative framework built around logic must adopt assumptions to make p and q mean anything. Higher order logic can also prove most of our modern maths (if not all, but I want to err on the side of caution after reading Kripke. Also, not the British "maths". I'm sure that gets me street cred somewhere), but mathematics can only get us so far without, again, inputting our assumptions.
I realize that the argument space I've opened up here is huge, but that's ok. I don't plan on tackling everything in one sitting. Instead, I will continue to build on this line of reasoning as I have time. I can do this because honestly, who reads this stuff? My musings are nothing but wind in sails.
*The writer endorses neither of the two viewpoints portrayed herein.