Second result: science cannot be confined to the empirical alone
It is wrong to say: if you do not see or hear something, it does not exist. The correct statement is: if you do not see or hear it, then you do not perceive it through direct empirical science.
The difference is significant: the first denies existence without evidence, while the second admits the limits of the method being used.
A blind person’s inability to perceive colors does not mean colors do not exist, and an animal’s inability to understand an airplane does not mean airplanes do not fly.
Likewise, human inability to perceive certain truths through the senses does not mean those truths do not exist; it means we need another path of knowledge if we wish to know them.
