>>As I said, science has nothing to do with faith. It needs proof, and repeateble, independently confirmed observations.
>
>I think that following reason requires faith in reason.
>
>The alternative is that you have a reason for following reason, but to reach the conclusion that reason must be followed you must presuppose that reason must be followed. Which is unreasonable.

If you mean we're assuming that application of logic is something we're assuming as an axiom in our thinking, then yes - we are assuming that, and so far so good. The moment we find flaws in our logic (in either the application thereof, or the logic itself), nothing stops us from inventing new logic.

Actually, such logics already exist. There's a trivalent logic, if anyone wants to mess with it, and there's the fuzzy logic, which is already in widespread use in home appliances etc. My washer/dryer already thinks fuzzy. Saves me a lot of energy that way.