As a professional philosopher, you can't pretend to be a disinterested arbiter in this debate. If science ever were to be recognized as the only source of true knowledge, philosophy would be of historical interest only. Teaching it would be like teaching a dead language, and how many of those teachers are there in the world?

The problem is that people use arguments like the one presented in this article to make the case that whatever they believe--or even 'feel'--is as valid as any findings of science. In politics, it is exactly to equal to putting loaded guns in the hands of children.

In the end, whether science is the only source of true knowledge or not is irrelevant. It is like arguing over evolution vs. creationism. Is how we got here really the most important thing?

What is most important is that we humans experiencing material reality as we do must be solvers of problems. To privilege theological or ideological beliefs--much less 'feelings'--over scientifically derived knowledge in dealing with material problems is to invite material disaster.