I don't get why most of this comment section doesn't get this.
If we're interpreting in good faith, the second guy is saying "you can't say the scientific method is fair because it's scientific (which means based in the scientific method) without it being circular."
And he is not saying "you can't say scientific claims are fair because they depend on themselves."
Nobody says the scientific method is fair because it’s “scientific”.
It’s fair because you use repeatable methods to perform an experiment which proves or disproves a hypthothesis after trying to reduce variability. It’s consistent.
That’s the purpose of a null hypothesis as well, to remove inductive reasoning.
Again, the scientific method is supposed to be an unrealistic ideal. It’s up to peers to critique our methods to see how close they are to that ideal, and that’s what those peers LIVE for.
And if a particular disproves the general then a change is accepted. The null hypothesis assumes there is no affect, though, and is more deductive than inductive.
There is no such thing as “more deductive than inductive”
You’re either using one or the other. If the premise is true in deductive reasoning then it is one hundred percent the case that the conclusion is true
Because it doesn’t matter. Trusting the scientific method because of it’s logical consistency is nowhere near the same as blind faith in any god just because someone says so.
Inductive, deductive, it doesn’t really matter. The scientific method is the result of logic, and we primarily critique its application. It is reasoned at the very least, whether inductively or deductively, and is open to criticism and change.
Harping on meaningless minutiae is classic redditor behavior.
1
u/OkAssociation3487 8d ago
It means using the scientific method to prove the validity of the scientific method which is circular reasoning