Everybody else is getting it. You're the only person here who is still confused.
Assumptions of the kind that is talked about in grade school is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about masters degree level stuff. Where epistemology and science meet. If there is such a thing as meta-science, the assumption of the validity of logic in the absence of scientific evidence is a consideration of meta-science and epistemology, or knowledge.
I honestly think you are just confusing two different concepts. I don't know how old you are, but this stuff just isn't covered in high school and freshman year in college. You just might be out of your depth. And I'm not saying this to be rude. I fully acknowledge that we all are at different stages in our education. We can't be expected to learn everything at once.
Assumptions of the kind that is talked about in grade school is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about masters degree level stuff. Where epistemology and science meet. If there is such a thing as meta-science, the assumption of the validity of logic in the absence of scientific evidence is a consideration of meta-science and epistemology, or knowledge.
I honestly think you are just confusing two different concepts. I don't know how old you are, but this stuff just isn't covered in high school and freshman year in college. You just might be out of your depth. And I'm not saying this to be rude. I fully acknowledge that we all are at different stages in our education. We can't be expected to learn everything at once.
