(March 23, 2019 at 8:39 pm)Belaqua Wrote:(March 23, 2019 at 8:30 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: We confirm its reliability by the results it produces, if revelation could produce accurate and consistent results the you could determine it's reliability.
That's right.
And what I've been saying all along is that when we confirm its reliability we can only imagine using scientific-type methods for confirmation.
This means that when we use the word "reliable" we have built into the word "science." This begs the question as to whether or not there can be non-scientific reliability. There can't because "reliable" and "scientific" have come to be used as tautological.
No, I just imagined using magic as a method for confirmation. The reason science is reliable is because of the results it produces, other methods are not excluded from being reliable but they have to be demonstrated.