You're still missing the point, you dunce. The scientific method can not be arrived at through scientific induction, so on what basis do you accept it as a suitable means for acquiring knowledge? You seem to be wholly ignorant of the philosophy of science and the abstract nature of epistemology.
As for the disciplines of theology and philosophy, to say there is no way to test their truths is false. We use logic and reason to determine if a belief is internally consistent, and observation to determine if it is consistent with the universe around us. Which, if you think about it, is much the same as the application of the scientific method.
But before you can even get out of the epistemological starting gate, you have to accept without proof that logic and reason can lead to true beliefs. Which is to say that every worldview ultimately starts with an unprovable assumption that is nevertheless rational to accept as true in and of itself.
Do you get it now? Or do you need it explained to you using crayons?
As for the disciplines of theology and philosophy, to say there is no way to test their truths is false. We use logic and reason to determine if a belief is internally consistent, and observation to determine if it is consistent with the universe around us. Which, if you think about it, is much the same as the application of the scientific method.
But before you can even get out of the epistemological starting gate, you have to accept without proof that logic and reason can lead to true beliefs. Which is to say that every worldview ultimately starts with an unprovable assumption that is nevertheless rational to accept as true in and of itself.
Do you get it now? Or do you need it explained to you using crayons?
Comment