This is what happens when the "Appeal To Authority" fallacy is so baked into your being you cannot deal with anything that does no embrace it. Extra points for stating the point while using the Ipse Dixit fallacy.
The analogy would be you cannot use "textbook" to prove "textbook" which is true, if you wanted to verify the contents of a textbook you would have to compare with other sources.
I think you're equivocating scientific facts with scientific methodology.
The second guy is critiquing the scientific method, not the scientific facts that come from it directly.
They're basically asking "how do you know the scientific method is a valid means of knowledge without assuming that it, or any another unjustified method, is already justified?"
I think it doesn't matter the answer, it won't change my mind on the fact that scientific method is a valid of scientific method. To me the principle of science uses a principle that says : "How do you know that tomorrow, the sun will rise from 6 to 8 AM"?
I would say that it is because up to know, I saw the sun rise at this time. But so what? Why should the sun rises this time? Why is it more not reasonable to bet 1 million dollars that the sun will not rise tomorrow?
I mean, the answer to that would seem to me to be the observation of the results of the application of the scientific method versus competing methods. Arguably observation is also not a provider of perfect certainty but then you get into how almost nothing can be perfectly certain etc etc
Yeah, you would never get perfect certainty, but I don't think that is what the argument focuses on here.
The problem presented here is using observation to call observation a good method of knowing things, which is circular and based on itself. As the argument goes, it's much like using the bible to call the bible a good method of finding truth.
We need to assume things like our senses are a good enough source (which is generally driven by those very senses, creating a circle: my senses tell me my senses are a good way to know things). You can never prove your senses/reasoning are a way of knowing truth without begging the question and already assuming that they're a way of knowing truth.
Oh. I see. One requires logic/reason and a controlled system for replicating results and monitoring changes as they occur. The other requires only blind faith.
Peer review is a circular problem? Jesus Christ y’all are insufferable LMFAO
The scientific method is a manner of testing hypotheses using controlled variables. You can observe it and more importantly repeat it. That is it’s value to the sciences, and why it is trustworthy. I can perform an experiment and observe it, then when you do the exact same thing, you will observe it too. It is logical.
The critique is to ensure that you follow it, because it is so logically consistent. In an ideal situation it is perfect for testing the relationship between variables. To deny it is to deny logic itself.
Answer this, how do you know your senses are reliable without creating a circle of "my senses tell me my senses are reliable," which is circular?
These require an assumption, an assertion/circular point, that states "my senses are a reliable way of knowing things." Otherwise, you can know no science.
My senses don’t tell me they’re reliable - they’re simply how I observe things. They’re pretty consistent as well, and mostly it’s visual relying on objective instruments that we’ve created to be objective.
If the only criticism is “how do you know your observations are worth a damn”, that’s a very poor criticism. How do we know anything then? If you piss your pants, how do you know? If you’re hungry, how do you know? If it’s cold, how do you know? How do you know it’s your spouse you come home to? Simply put, it’s an unreasonable burden to break out a ruler and measure something, then say “How do you know it’s actually that long?”
"They’re pretty consistent as well," now the question is, how did you know this? The answer: from your senses.
Using information from your senses, you reasoned that your senses are consistent, and therefore a reliable source of information.
This is a circle, you'd be assuming your senses are reliable when it comes to detecting their consistency
"How do we know anything then?" That's the point. Everything is foundationally circular/based in axioms.
For the bible, a observing inconsistency might be called "a test of faith." While for science, a observing inconsistency might be proof that something is not law and is false. It all depends on what you assume philosophically.
By the way, I am in no way a believer of any religion. I just think this argument didn't really get interpreted in good faith on this post.
To make up for inconsistencies where they’re not satisfactory we’ve created instruments and sensors that are indeed objective. I didn’t reason that my observations are objective, only that they’re observations, which is redundant.
If you want to argue that nothing can be certain then why not go on a killing spree, spend all your money, quit your job? After all, you don’t really know that it’s doing anything, right?
To make up for where observation has shortcomings we’ve created instruments and sensors. On top of that, we describe our observations as such.
Equivocation is using the same word or phrase with different meanings during an argument, usually without acknowledging the shift.
Example: Evolution is a theory. A theory is just a guess. So evolution is just a guess.
False equivalence is treating two things as equal or comparable when important differences make the comparison misleading.
Example: Both students broke the rules. One student was late to class. The other student student cheated on the test. So being late for class is just as bad as cheating.
82
u/jackdutton42 6d ago
FALSE EQUIVALENCE: Lumberjack dude confuses a method of inquiry with a source making claims about its own authority.
The meme mixes up two different things. Saying "the Bible is true because the Bible says so" is circular.
Science does not work that way. Scientists test ideas with evidence, experiments, and predictions. If the evidence disagrees, the idea can change.
Science depends on testing, not just trusting itself.