Can you correct this text

Knowledge deriving from a phenomenon or phenomena is neither characterized as being true nor false, it only has a practical value as truth is logically, in abstraction of the sensible immediate of the subject, indistinguishable from untruth without the knowledge of what is true beforehand. Any such knowledge can only be true under certain conditions, it is provisional in lack of any more practical alternative and in absence of certainty, which last requires not mere perceptual experience to ascertain the essence of the concept itself, but requires a pure a priori knowledge. In contrast, knowledge that is not conveyed through the senses, looping on itself as in a closed system need be true, and so is knowledge whose concepts exist within a virtual frame, on the assumption that logic is consistent, such that it faultlessly derives consequences from necessary premises. Insofar as whether the quality of being true or whether the opposite characterizes the object of knowledge, and thus knowledge itself, beyond the sensible receptivity is unimportant and is not a practical knowledge, or so it seems, the subject ignores the possibility of a transcendental scale of perception in the process of learning and applying knowledge. The distinction should be however made to those who seek enlightenment, not the truth, so as not to let their beliefs make them lose sight of a larger perspective. Not coextensive, and hence in conflict against one another, metaphysics and experimental science are, especially in the present case as the above questions the relevance of the principles under and from which experimental science is molded into more precise and refined forms from a stage to another, in the deployment of their respective apparatuses. Metaphysics and experimental science, we can, when these two embody the distinction of truth, assert of them that they have for common purpose not so much to paint the truth as what it seems to be; to describe the mechanisms underlying natural phenomena or to devise a set of principles that may fully explain the causes of natural phenomena. The subject as differentiated from the object acquires the thought of the latter through the reproduction of perception; hence, this reproduction is entirely dependent on the mean through which the perception of the object is conveyed, which is not necessarily the essence of the object, its true manifestation. This belief stems not from a lack of faith in the capacity of man to reason, but rather his capacity to perceive; we perceive imagination as chaotic, whereas the objective reality seems to us dictated by a finite amount of laws, but the criteria upon which we conclude it is so was not defined to be suitable for the scope and the purpose of the metaphysical model in question, but on the contrary was determined upon the sensible immediacy. It is certainly why in religion, agnosticism is certainly the most logical belief and any people tending towards either direction, have too much faith in God or science.

It is an ancient text I wrote, but I made several corrections to make it clearer.