Hi Scott,
I am trying to point out that if we chose not to accept any knowledge until it has passed through rigorous empirical scientific protocol we could not accept anything as truthful knowledge because rigorous scientific protocols are all inherently flawed as well.
This is a reducto ad absurdum arguement and doesn't make your case. Even if you are right, then your arguement becomes a fallacy of false negation (claiming that by discrediting one theory, we must accept the other). My mistake was probably bringing science into the arguement in the first place.
To make things simpler, I will stick to my statement that the arguements for enlightenment are sound only if you accept the premise that it exist. If you don't accept that premise than all the arguements built on it, no matter how well constructed, are invalid.
Best regards,
Bruce Mitchell