Not to pick on Weir (see my earlier post), but he also says that, on principle, arguments based on faith and ideology are not arguments but beliefs.
Please! Stop! All arguments are based on faith or ideology! All of them! It is a necessary condition of knowing something that the knower believe it!
As I learned it in philosophy class, to know something means
1. it is true
2. I believe it
3. A. it needs no proof (math/logic/a definition/perfect accuracy but immaterial)
3. B. I have proof beyond a reasonable doubt (sense data of any kind, which is always fallible)
If anyone argues he knows something, he is saying, by definition, that the proof supports his belief and is true. That is what knowledge is.