No reason justifies disbelief.

[bennyboy]

Straw men?  I repeated a thing you typed, literally, and corrected you with respect to what I've been commenting on.   I'd tell you to fuck off with that dumb shit, but I know you won't, not that you can't, ofc......  

No, you introduced it, I commented, and then you repeated it as though it was ever anything I was arguing. You've been doing a lot of that lately.

But..sure, science is a subset of empirical investigation, and on that basis alone it's hard to ascertain why any empirical whatsit would be a black box for scientific inquiry regardless of whether or not science has yet, or even will ever answer a specific empirical question.  It's the best tool we've come up with yet for answering questions of that sort..and you've been leaning on it, even if you can't quite bring yourself to accurately represent it, in this conversation.

Horseshit. Science has in fact neither answered, nor shown any capacity for answering, the kinds of questions we've been talking about. Here's you in a nutshell: "We can use science to answer some why questions, so. . . science is the best tool we've come up with yet for explaining why there's something rather than nothing."

Obvious non sequitur is obvious.

There's no such thing as a scientific conclusion independent of interpretation..or -any- empirical observation independent of interpretation, for that matter, but so what, still willing to assume your can'ts without any of this convoluted horseshit required.   It's simply not true that this statement is the entirety of your "thesis", and you do yourself a disservice claiming as much now when your posts still exist for anyone to scroll back and read...you know...empirically.  

I'm not talking about the conclusions. I'm talking about the observations themselves. If you want to argue that a ruler measurement or detection of X-rays is dependent on interpretation, then rock on. I'm going to argue that the kinds of observations use in what we normally call science, and the kind of subjective observations you've been equivocating about by babbling about "empirical observations" instead of "science" when I talk about questions answerable only by direct experience, are unlike in important ways.