The reason I found your statements to be so infuriating is because you are using academic terms like logic, and subjective and objective and applying them inappropriately.
For example: science is subject
To say science is subjective is a generalization of science. Science has objective and subjective areas, but to say science as a whole is subjective is intellectually dishonest.. that is, if you even intellectually understand those concepts (ie understand those terms beyond a layperson's comprehension, and don't think subjectivity is ground for dismissal). You had the tone of somebody trying to dismiss science IMHO..
Why should we call something that has both elements of objectivity and subjectivity as subjective, and then by default fallible? I don't think I ever said science was infallible, and even if I did I would have caught up in the commenting, and would have been wrong. My point is, that diagnosing science as completely fallible or infallible is subjective, and saying that science is completely subjective is inaccurate.
I found that to be very infuriating.. especially statements like this:
Once again, at some level you seem to understand that science is fallible, you're just unwilling to label it a such. I think because you either don't understand what "fallible" means or don't understand what "science" is.
Diagnosing science as being fallible at any angle and for any reason is a subjective critique. I would never say science is fallible. Why would I want to discredit a field of study that I respect? The method is designed to prevent a theory or idea in the scientific community (no matter how widely held or respected) as either being taught as true or false if it can't be proven either way, which is why things like Plate Tectonics are theories.. even though it makes sense, and it seems so logical that lay people and high schoolers easy confuse it as fact. Until it's proven as being true, it's a theory, same as the Big Bang Theory. And more than likely they are both going to remain theories, because I don't see any way of proving either of them. So on those grounds, I don't think science if fallible.
So when you are telling me that "science is subjective" you sound as intelligent to me as somebody who says "psychology is subjective," which isn't very intelligent. Psychology has theories, and psychologists make subjective judgments like the rest of scientists.. but I wouldn't say as a whole the practice of psychology is subjective or fallible. That is disingenuous and frankly ignorant.
The only people who would generalize psychology as subjective and fallible are Scientologist and a few others, because they don't believe in taking drugs for mental health reasons.. they don't agree that PTSD is really a diagnosis or should be a diagnosis. As I understand it, Scientologist view PSTD and postpartum depression as subjectively described aliments and diseases, that need to be treated and "cured" by a practice that is flawed and dismal. They have their own reasons to explain those things away, and their own cures.. which really are not cures, but removing what they believe to be the real culprit.
And when you said the solar system was subjective. That really ticked me off too. Combined with your comment about philosophers rolling over in their graves for me saying "logic is the foundation of science" or something like that. I knew you wouldn't be able to name philosophers, because it's my view you would find them.
The fact is philosophers like Hegel, would more in fact be rolling over in the graves about your comment. His philosophical meaning of being, the perpetual existence of the present and the human spirit (zeitgeist and weltzeist) to progress and become.. coincides with the theory of science IMO. His logic of being and existence is in disagreement with a statement such as "the solar system is subjective."
The solar system exists, it's in the state of being.. therefor it isn't subjective. You are not subjective, you exist. It sort of goes along with the famous statement "I think, therefore I am." Hegel's perception is that existence is not subjective. Being = objective. Existence = objective
So there was a long list of exchanges that honestly made me think you were in over you head with this discussion, and not able to appropriately use big words. That might sound rough, but this 100% honesty.
Now if you think I am some god hating future scientist who thinks Darwin's theory is going to be proven as truth someday, and therefore I am your enemy; you would have me wrong. I don't really care enough about his theory to study it for myself.. so I don't know the specifications. It wasn't spoon fed to me in college or anywhere else. I have no personal opinion on his theory, nor do I care to form one. His theory doesn't impact the way I think about the world or my faith.
I am done with this conversation. I am not willing to debate or throw anymore bones. I just wanted to make my final statement on why I was getting so personally angry and impatient. I was letting things slide through for believing you were honestly incapable of comprehending..