But you can't say "and is also not true" without using a fallacy.Quote from XDarkAngelXThe deist god, OTOH, is useless, and can be dismissed simply as a futile thought exercise. Anything that cannot, by definition, be observed is the same as something that is non-existent, for all intent and purpose.
But I agree that it does not really matter one way or the other, which is why I keep saying "I'm a weak agnostic," not "I'm an (atheistic)/(theistic) agnostic."
Cuz that other part don't really matter, yo!
when I said "yes a little" to Tri? 
That's proving my point, not yours.Ok,
but we've already established I'm not making the claim "don't ever trust your senses."
Can you -at least- stop using the same strawman?
You've not explained how that would work independent of the scientific method.
How, for example, would you verify General Relativity without the scientific method?
Yes-like your senses argument can when presented a certain way- it appears circular when presented this way.
That's kinda the point.
How do you respond to someone that keeps asking "why" over and over? Kids do it a lot.
"Why should we trust the scientific method?"
"It works."
"Why do we know it works?"
"The scientific method."
"Why should we trust the scientific method?"
"It works."
"Why do we..."
Not my place to tell him what to do in that regard. Likely, he would regardless of what I'd say. I'd just let him know how I grade in my class and let him make his own life decisions.
but we've already established I'm not making the claim "don't ever trust your senses."
Have you been reading my posts?
Because, I've not been saying "this method of investigation" is an axiom. I have been saying "this method of investigation is the best way we have to find truth" is an axiom.
Oh, and you still didn't answer:How can you accurately validate the scientific method's findings without using the scientific method?
This is the problem I'm having. And, I don't want you to think what I'm about to say is a strawman. I want to be clear I understand this is simply my interpretation of what your saying. If I'm wrong in that interpretation, I simply want you to clarify.
But -as far as I can tell- you started this debate claiming you're feeling and senses about your feelings where -as you say in the first quote "is indeed axiomatic." Then, you started saying you "trust the scientific method and its results over anything else right now as a general principle for applicable problems," yet IT wasn't axiomatic. So, I would like you to answer the question I asked in my last post to you, that you artfully dodged:also
Because -to me- this is really the clincher.
I am trying to see which you take over which.
Now, in saying that, I realize we are talking about YOU. Because, I want it to be clear I would trust the scientists. I do take the scientific method over my own feelings. If I 'feel' something is true, but the scientific method says it's false, I would take the method 100% of the time.
Which -really- is why I'm confused you keep saying I'm not taking it 'axiomatically.' I am literally taking it over something you say IS 'axiomatic.' So, while maybe you don't take it to be axiomatic (which is fine), you're going to have to explain to me how that's not what I'm doing.
Reread what I wrote. At no point did I say they were the same.
And, again DJK3654, part of this is coming from the fact you seem to have no real motivation to read anything I link. I you did, you'd be better informed on how much our brain tricks itself every second of everyday. Essentially, you keep underestimating the ability of the brain to delude itself.*
*Well -I guess for this- I should add "the scientific method claims" to that last sentence about the ability of the brain to delude itself.
If you said 'I feel cold right now,' while your brain was being monitored. And, the scientists monitoring it told you they were 99.99% sure, using the scientific method, you weren't feeling cold, your brain was just being delusional at that moment. Would you still be convinced you were right about feeling cold?
Why do you think people always seem to get song lyrics wrong, until they're told the right ones?I was under the impression you were strawmaning me by making it seem as if I claimed I don't trust my senses enough to read ink on a page. Yet, we can yell 'strawman' back and forth all we want, but it's not productive.
If you are saying it wasn't your intention to make it seem like I claimed that my senses are totally unreliable, then, alright, I misunderstood. So, what was your point?
Should I be trusting my senses over the scientific method when it comes to finding truth?
Cuz, if you're saying 'no,' then this debate is really about what 'axiom' means, since we'd be in agreement about what we're saying, just not how to say it.
You do?
You just told me:
You can't tell me 'I trust the scientific method and its results over anything else right now' and 'the scientific method requires justification.'
So, which is it? Do you trust the scientific method, or do you have some way to check it that does not involve it?
I would tell this hypothetical student, 'Cuz, it works.'
What I would -likely- not say is that the only way we know 'it works' is to apply it to its own results... unless I was trying to make some point about unavoidable error or circular logic.
As I have already said, I am not saying I shouldn't trust my senses. In fact, I have already said I should, just not absolutely.
Nor would I classify my nearsighted eyes as 'accurate' just because they're usable to detect ink on a closeup page.
You have not told me the method you use to find truths over the scientific method. You hinted there is a method, but you've not stated what it is or how you use it.A system can have more than one axiom. In fact, most meaningful ones do. For example, arithmetic normally has 7 to 11, depending.
The scientific method has -in fact- shown us our senses really really suck.
So, if I'm not doing what I am saying I am doing, mainly accepting the scientific method is the best way to find truths axiomatically (based on the processes outlined in post #156), what am I doing? What -exactly- is your counterclaim?
Tell me again, what -exactly- are my axioms?
And don't just say 'your senses' because I've just denied they are. If you feel I am in denial about that denial, you've not -yet- proven it to me. So, if that is your claim, I must ask you repeat yourself in a different way.
Oh, and -for someone gungho about not being ignored while claiming I shouldn't need to repeat myself- you still haven't answered the question I've asked you twice, and I guess I should ask again:
What do you -currently- trust over the scientific method?
And, what do you trust over that?
Regardless of your opinion of their validity, I would appreciate it you do me the reciprocal courtesy of answering.
What do you -currently- trust over the scientific method?
And, what do you trust over that?
Ask this question until you have no better answer, and -then- you'll have yours.
Sigh....
Also, Stairc, you might want to glance at this one if you get a chance:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/debate/religion/641818-define-your-faith?comment=146
Anyway,
The 'point' at this stage is to get to a shared Step 0: To agree on definitions.
Once we have done that to a satisfactory level, we can communicate enough to properly flush out our 'starting points' to one another. Likely, that will be the end, because our starting points will be different and no further progress could meaningfully be made.
But, it is premature to claim our starting points are different because we've not satisfactory agreed on the definition of 'axiom,' which is a critical idea to this. Currently, I am going off of the accepted definition (as I cited earlier) "Axioms are primitive statements, whose validity is accepted without justification." "Within the system they define, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow otherwise they would be classified as theorems." And, -thus far- you don't seem to be. Since we can't -yet- agree on what the word 'axiom' means, we can't meaningfully evaluate if ours are different or not. So, we need to do that first.
I also have a suspicion we disagree on the definition of 'the scientific method,' but one thing at a time...
We've build our understanding each day, we built a better system. To borrow from Tarski's undefinability theorem, the thing is, we normally build UP. We slowly create metasystems to explain our old systems. Each metasystem has axioms that supersede the axioms in the old system. We bootstrap ourselves up, coming up with higher and higher axioms. Bootstrapping in this matter is not logical. Logic can't say which system is 'better at finding truths,' since logic doesn't care about finding truths anymore than a hammer cares about hammering nails.
Anyway, at a snapshot in our life, we are at some highest system for that moment.
My current highest system (which is different then yours, and very different from my own 30 years ago) has the scientific method as its starting axiom. I have been unable to bootstrap myself past it. It is -as far as I have been able to tell in my 34 years of life- the best way to find truth. Better than everything else, even my own thoughts and feeling, which where my highest axiom for some time. Yet, when I figured out another metasystem to examine the one with my thoughts and feelings as the axioms, I found them to be wanting. So, I moved on to the new system, with its axioms. I cannot justify my choice to you, bootstrapping is what it is. I can only say it was what I did.
What do you -currently- trust over the scientific method?
Because, if the answer is 'nothing,' then your trust in it would be axiomatic, by definition.Those two things are equivalent by my definitions of those words. To further define things:
"Axioms are primitive statements, whose validity is accepted without justification."[1]
"Within the system they define, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow otherwise they would be classified as theorems."[2]
"Basic beliefs (also commonly called foundational beliefs or core beliefs) are, under the epistemological view called foundationalism, the axioms of a belief system."[3]
Now, you can use a metasystem to justify your axioms in the first system, but then your metasystem would necessarily (by the theorems already cited in my other posts) contain unjustified axioms.
So, we're still stuck at 'step 0' here.
Ok, so we still toggle between 'step 0' and the 'starting point step.' If "science is not an axiom" under your system, then what is the starting point?
What are the axioms it is a result of?
It sounds like (unlike how it sounds in post #147 where you say if the scientific method disagrees with your senses, you would take it over them) you're going with StairC's system and trusting your thoughts and feelings over the scientific method. Which is fine.
I can no more tell you your wrong with your choice than you can tell me with mine. But, I don't think we've progressed to the point were I should be making that statement. Since we need to get past the definitional and starting point stages before we can even sensibly "agree to disagree."
What do you -currently- believe over the scientific method?
And, what do you believe over that?
Ask this question until you have no better answer, and -then- you'll have yours.