There are limits to science, and I think we all know what those are. The problem with claims there is some better way to find reliable knowledge, and NOT just this discussion but the question in general (which keeps coming up), is they imply this is better in some material sense. That is, it is measurably better, but they they cannot say how it is better, or how it is measured, or even what this would mean. LRT is not the first to bump into this problem, only the latest one to post about it here.
That doesn’t mean there is no other value in wanting some better, non-material way, or even thinking that you have one, but when this spills into making material claims, it becomes perfectly fair to ask material questions about it. An example from my own experience is “Chi” in the martial arts. When I was practicing I came to understand chi as a non-western concept that involves a number of technics westerners understand very well; breath control, mental imagery, kinesthetic sense, etc.. Chi isn’t magic, it’s the application of practical methods that can give useful results.
Which brings me back to what I was trying to express to LRT; if there is a better way of knowing things, or some concept of a better way to know things, then we should be able to show useful results for it. It might then become something we can study scientifically, as has happened in the past (magnetism, etc.).
OR maybe not. Maybe the better way is forever beyond our reach.