Skepticism

"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

- David Hume

When an individual believes in nothing but the scientific method - they are saying that if something does not fit the scientific method, it cannot be proven. To this one must ask, did you come to that belief by the scientific method?

I would certainly think not. Perhaps the individual, after much testing and discovery through the scientific method, found it very plausible that this is a rock-solid method for discovering truth about the universe. However - the logical statement they have posited remains entirely unscientific. Therefore, if they reject an idea simply because it cannot fit the frame of the scientific method, they have left pure, practical reason and have embarked on an ideologically driven prejudice. The end result of such a leap has a few consequences -

1. An individual is hopelessly steeped in the circular reasoning of naturalism, i.e. the only relevant information is material, the only relevant methods are those which only factor in reasoning based on material things. This doesn't sound too bad, but the laws of logic themselves are non-material, which is a big problem.

2. The individual has created a bias, and excluded information in their evaluation. The reason certain sciences are referred to as "soft" sciences are because they cannot be entirely and fairly evaluated with the scientific method, i.e. Social sciences, psychology, etc. Science means more than the scientific method. Statistics taken from individuals often cannot be absolute, but provide tons of useful information that cannot be excluded without a loss of something valuable.

3. The scientific method provides no objective basis for ethics. Quoting Atheist Kai Nielsen:

"We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn't decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me . . . . Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.
(Kai Nielsen, "Why Should I Be Moral?" American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (1984): 90.)

Should an idea be immediately thrown out because it is a "miracle," or defies natural law as presently understood? More on this and other random thoughts later.