Pull up a chair

[Esquilax]

Blah blah fucking blah :S

Just address the subject already would you!

So, I take it you don't have a response or rebuttal, then?

Do you admit that equivocating between things that are demonstrated to work and things that can't even be demonstrated to exist is dishonest?

[Tonus]

P.s. saying science works because science works is arguing in a circle.

True, but saying that science is reliable because it works is not.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

P.s. saying science works because science works is arguing in a circle.

True, but saying that science is reliable because it works is not.

I know others have pointed it out but the irony hurts my mind thinking that he said that "science is reliable because science is reliable is circular reasoning" whilst typing on a machine that works because of science.

[LastPoet]

Yeah, and he probably drives a car too. I guess the engineers and workers at the factory, prayed the car into existence, ZAP!

[Esquilax]

Besides, "science is reliable because it's reliable" would only be circular reasoning if we couldn't, say, point to the large, technologically advanced civilization that has arisen due to consistent application of the scientific method.

Try telling us science doesn't work while I look up information about the fucking mars rover on a device connected to a global network of technology that would have looked like fucking wizardry just twenty years ago, see how that looks.

[Alex K]

Besides, "science is reliable because it's reliable" would only be circular reasoning if we couldn't, say, point to the large, technologically advanced civilization that has arisen due to consistent application of the scientific method.

As I tried to say a few pages ago, sure you can reject this as discipulus wants us to consider, but you would have to deny that reality exists in order to do so. Accepting reality as real is not quite the leap of faith he would like to think it is in his apologist phantasies.

[Tonus]

Besides, "science is reliable because it's reliable" would only be circular reasoning if we couldn't, say, point to the large, technologically advanced civilization that has arisen due to consistent application of the scientific method.

I hate to say this, but... it's circular because it's circular. I think it's also inaccurate (to be kind) or disingenuous, since saying that "science is reliable because it works" seems reasonable to me. The conclusion follows from the evidence.

This becomes tricky when we talk about "having faith in our senses." I find that to be an inaccurate way to look at it. Although our senses can be fooled, we rely on them nonetheless and very rarely do we need to apply faith. I was not born unable to use my senses until someone convinced me that they were trustworthy, after all. I relied on them and they fed me data about my surroundings that I used to interact with the world. To make them an article of faith ends any attempt at discussion or debate. We perceive our world through our senses. If we can't rely on them, then nothing is reliable. So maybe that transcendent experience that led you to god was just a bad trip.

[FreeTony]

I can't think of another field where in order to demonstrate a hypothesis the person tries and argues that essentially everything is based on faith so really every hypothesis is equally valid.

I have two investment opportunities:

1. A large fairly dull company that for the last 20 years has given a good dividend and steady share price.
2. The magic bean salesman.

I'd of course opt for number 2 as it would be circular reasoning to opt for 1.

[Alex K]

I can't think of another field where in order to demonstrate a hypothesis the person tries and argues that essentially everything is based on faith so really every hypothesis is equally valid.

I have two investment opportunities:

1. A large fairly dull company that for the last 20 years has given a good dividend and steady share price.
2. The magic bean salesman.

I'd of course opt for number 2 as it would be circular reasoning to opt for 1.

Can I pn you about a very interesting non-circular investment opportunity with great interest returns in the first year?

[Esquilax]

Besides, "science is reliable because it's reliable" would only be circular reasoning if we couldn't, say, point to the large, technologically advanced civilization that has arisen due to consistent application of the scientific method.

I hate to say this, but... it's circular because it's circular. I think it's also inaccurate (to be kind) or disingenuous, since saying that "science is reliable because it works" seems reasonable to me. The conclusion follows from the evidence.

Is it not true that the reliability of a thing is determined by the extent to which it works as intended?