(December 16, 2010 at 5:39 pm)Chuck Wrote:(December 16, 2010 at 4:57 pm)rjh4 Wrote: What you said clearly touches on the "and get results" part, but if fails to address the main part of what I was getting at. I was wondering how scientific/methodological naturalism could be used to establish the truthfulness of a claim that scientific/methodological naturalism is the single most effective epistimology for establishing truth claims, which is, essentially, what Void was claiming. So, Chuck, maybe you can address my real point.
Name a competitor and we shall examine the relative efficacy.
If you are unable to come up with a another epistimology capable of not just claiming, but demonstrating in the sense normally understood, equal efficacy in establishing the truthfulness of a claim, then you have no respectable grounds to challenge his claim.
You are avoiding the question, Chuck.
How is scientific/methodological naturalism used to establish the truthfulness of a claim that scientific/methodological naturalism is the single most effective epistemology for establishing truth claims (without being circular)?
My ability to name a competitor for you to evaluate is irrelevent to the question. I didn't make the claim. Void did. Therefore, I think he is responsible for answering the question. Or if you agree with the claim and would like to answer, feel free. But since I didn't make any such claim, why should I have to provide anything in order for my question to be answered?
Note, if you cannot answer the question, why not simply refrain from responding?
