Authoritarian Truth Seekers and Anti-Authoritarian Truth Seekers?

Authoritarian Truth Seekers & Anti-Authoritarian Truth Seekers? I understand that there are truth seekers and non-truth seekers (because of disinterest, dogma “false sense of truth” and/or delusion). But I also realize there are two types of truth seekers: Authoritarian Truth Seekers and Anti-Authoritarian Truth Seekers. Authoritarian Truth Seekers: to me use an Authoritarian Personality to understand, analyze, confirm truth, and limit what is thought of as truth. Authoritarian personality is a state of mind or attitude that is characterized by belief in absolute obedience or submissive to authority and possibly even one’s own authority, as well as the administration of that belief through the oppression of one’s subordinates. It is an ideology which entails accepting authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of intellectual or human relations that includes authoritative, strict, or oppressive personality in truth acquisition and adherence to values or beliefs that are perceived as endorsed by followed leadership, authority of holy books, authority of gods, authority of beliefs held by someone who is favored or idolized, and authority of one’s own beliefs. Anti-Authoritarian Truth Seekers: to me use an Anti-Authoritarian Personality to understand, analyze and confirm truth. Anti-Authoritarian personality is a state of mind or attitude that is characterized by a cognitive application of freethought known as “freethinking” and is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, or other dogmas. Anti-Authoritarian personality is an opposition to authoritarianism, favoring instead full equality and open thinking in the conduct of intellectual or human relations, including democratic, flexible, or accessible personality in truth acquisition and...

Science and Philosophy

I think science and philosophy work together.   But, I hear some say, science does not need philosophy. Really, okay then I have a question for you: “Does science observation trump philosophy or does philosophy trump science observation?”  I like when science-only-people say they value science observation proof as the highest proof even possibly adding that they either have a low regard or as far as state they do not believe in philosophy at all as useful, which I find amazing and saddening. But, then often some of these same science-only-people, when I state I believe it is reasonable to state we can know the external-science-observation-proof of and about reality with a very high level of certainty and still can remain open if new altering observation is found, they say “no” we cannot ever be highly certain that things are a fact (although they seem to state this as a hard fact), some even going as far as stating, we can never be certain of anything. But, then I wonder on what do they make such a strong claim, non-philosophy science-only-observation? * The Scientific Method (multiple methods some of which involve philosophy)? * Evidentialism (which involves a philosophy theory of justification)? * Empiricism (which involves a philosophy of knowledge)? * Falsificationism (which involves a philosophy approach to knowledge)? * Logic (which involves a philosophy use and study of valid reasoning)? Or is it because of the philosophy of skepticism, if not tells us how without any branch of philosophy you know this, otherwise I say it’s some philosophy. So, wait which is it then, does philosophy trumps science observation...