In Trumpism epistomology was the first casualty, and why there is still hope.

[DetlefK]

2. I've had discussions with two people who studied theology.

I was told that there's a principal difference between how scholars of the natural sciences think and how scholars of the humanities think:

- In the natural sciences, the first thing you do in an argument is establishing definitions, so we all know what we're talking about. (e.g. "energy" has only one meaning)

- In the humanities, definitions aren't taken seriously and that leads to problems in arguments. Even though both people use the same words, these words have different meanings to them. (e.g. Two people may agree that there is a hell, but what actually IS a hell, what counts as hell, where is it, what is it like?)

The humanities have the advantage that they are not as rigid and limited in their ways of thinking as the natural sciences. Only the imagination is the limit.

On the other hand, the natural sciences have something that the humanities have not: an impartial arbiter who can settle any dispute. The experiment.
In the humanities you can make endless arguments for and against an opinion until one side gives up or gets murdered.
In the natural sciences you can do an impartial experiment that will settle the argument, objective and without personal or political preferences.