No reason justifies disbelief.

[Belacqua]

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.

---

And what information have you gathered in a non scientific way ?

This is a thought experiment about confirming information gained in non-scientific ways. I offered as an example of non-scientific information revelation. (Then I had to explain over and over that I don't believe in revelation, that it's just a theoretical example.) 

The point is that if we did take in any information in a non-scientific way, is there some non-scientific way which we could use to say it's reliable. If not, then we are not open-minded to the possibility of non-scientific reliability. 

Or if you want to argue that there is no possibility of taking in and evaluating information in a non-scientific way, then you are saying that you're not open-minded to the possibility of non-scientific information and reliability.

[Mr.wizard]

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.

[possibletarian]

This is a thought experiment about confirming information gained in non-scientific ways. I offered as an example of non-scientific information revelation. (Then I had to explain over and over that I don't believe in revelation, that it's just a theoretical example.) 

The point is that if we did take in any information in a non-scientific way, is there some non-scientific way which we could use to say it's reliable. If not, then we are not open-minded to the possibility of non-scientific reliability. 

Or if you want to argue that there is no possibility of taking in and evaluating information in a non-scientific way, then you are saying that you're not open-minded to the possibility of non-scientific information and reliability.

That was not the question, the question was what information have you been able to gather using the non scientific method so far ?

[Belacqua]

This is a thought experiment about confirming information gained in non-scientific ways. I offered as an example of non-scientific information revelation. (Then I had to explain over and over that I don't believe in revelation, that it's just a theoretical example.) 

The point is that if we did take in any information in a non-scientific way, is there some non-scientific way which we could use to say it's reliable. If not, then we are not open-minded to the possibility of non-scientific reliability. 

Or if you want to argue that there is no possibility of taking in and evaluating information in a non-scientific way, then you are saying that you're not open-minded to the possibility of non-scientific information and reliability.

That was not the question, the question was what information have you been able to gather using the non scientific method so far ?

That's taking me off topic. I'm not inclined to go there.

---

they have to be demonstrated.

By which you mean: demonstrated through intersubjective empirical data. Which means, science.

[possibletarian]

That's taking me off topic. I'm not inclined to go there.

---

Well maybe it would help us understand why you think it's a way of gathering information, if you have succeeded in doing the very thing you want us to consider.

1) What information have you gained.?
2) what method have you used to show it's reliable and can be trusted ?

[LadyForCamus]

Hi guys,

Drinking heavily atm. Will catch up tomorrow. 🍷😘

[possibletarian]

Hi guys,

Drinking heavily atm.  Will catch up tomorrow. 🍷😘

Okaysh laydeefurchamush

[Mr.wizard]

That was not the question, the question was what information have you been able to gather using the non scientific method so far ?

That's taking me off topic. I'm not inclined to go there.

---

they have to be demonstrated.

By which you mean: demonstrated through intersubjective empirical data. Which means, science.

I don't know how you could determine the reliability of something without using empirical data. In order for us to make a determination on the reliability of a method we would have to observe the results and calculate the reliability. You essentially want us to make a determination about reliability while excluding everything we a humans use to make determinations about reliability. So again your thought experiment is stupid.

[Belacqua]

I don't know how you could determine the reliability of something without using empirical data.

This is what I've been saying all along.

We can't think of any other way of being "reliable" because in our metaphysical view "reliable" is tautological with "science."

So by definition, we hold science to be the only possible reliable method.

[Catharsis]

Please try to focus on what I'm doing here.

I'm not arguing that revelation is real. I'm not arguing that there is a God who sends it. etc. etc.

I am thinking about what we mean when we talk about reliability. It looks as though most of the time when we use that word, we use it to mean "scientifically testable." So that becomes a begged question. Science = reliable and not science = not reliable. 

So one way to question this would be to think about other sources of knowledge, and how they could, theoretically, be reliable in non-science-type ways. I have offered, as a thought experiment, the idea of revelation, which I take not to be a scientifically valid source of information. 

If you want to offer a different example of a non-scientific source of information and talk about how it might be reliable, that would be fine too.

You miss the point, in order for revelation to be considered a reliable source of information we would need to know that it is real and how it works. You might as well say we can reach reliable conclusions through magic.

Magic, like dreams?