Because you authoritatively deny that science is the only way to learn Nature and promote what John from Utah characterized as "nobody knows" [what mother Nature "in reality" is] attitude.

This is incorrect. There is no such thing as "absolute truth" [of the Universe or in the Nature]or such ything as "absolute reality" - all things consist of something else. Cells consists of ribosomes, ribosomes of molecules, and so on. So what is "absolute truth" here: cells, ribosomes, molecules, atoms, protons, quarks, strings, etc? Which of the above you call "reality"?

Or do you try to say that because tomorrow we may discover strins, or false vacuum or dark matter/energy or space-time quanta or whatever, it may be so revolutionary that we will be NO LONGER MADE OF CELLS (ATOMS)? Or that molecules will no longer behave as Shroedinger equation prescribes them to behave? Evolution stops? Photons will no longer fall down? I don't think so.

You other claim is that what if we "climb over ever narrowing branch on the tree of knowledge and stuck at the end"? I hope you do not suggest that we have to go back to our ape roots and start over (this time following your recommendations to avoid "closed-minded scientific belief in narrow dogma of mathematics and logic" as some of your posts say).

But what if we do just that? Let's see how far would we go from the roots were we to follow your wise advice to "open our mind".

Where do you think would we be if we never use math,logic and experimenting? As far as I know, Egyptians were (about 5 thousand years ago) first to use numbers, simple geometry, and some astronomy (correct me if I am wrong here and there were earlier civilisations with some math knowledge). That is where we have to stop - if we do not want to use math. In maintaining pre-Egyptian hunting/ gathering tribes style and quality of life (or death?) forewer.

How about to think how far we can go without experimenting? Well, I am afraid we have to go way back then. Not even before bronse age - we have to go back into literally dark cold ages before fire was tamed - as far back as about 30-50 thousand years ago. That is where we have to stop our evolution if we do not want or by some reason can not experiment - wandering in the cold and wearing stinky crusty animal fur (to make it soft you have to EXPERIMENT with oil and some chemicals).

How about without logic?! Ouch! Say, suppose you saw by your own eyes from a brunch what happened to your uncle Bob yesterday when during lunch he did not pay attention to some mellow roar nearby and as a logic consequence could not make it out of bushes back to his tree from a bunch of hangry lions.

So, you sit down and analyse your yesterday's observation ("scientific method", you see?) - and afer thinking hard you may came up with some quite useful "scientific theory": when you go bush-to-bush bananaing, you'd better watch and listen out.

I am afraid that WITHOUT LOGIC (and some of those nasty "scientific methods") we would never make it to the ground at all.

Disagree?