[mistermann]

What if your premises are less solid than they seem, and because of the "our thinking style is not only better on a relative scale, on average, it is near flawless in an absolute sense" mindset that often comes along with the culture of "science" you're unable to even consider such possibilities?

[lisper]

What premises? The scientific method has no premises, it's just a method. If you are "unable to consider" some possibility that is not the fault of the scientific method, that is a shortcoming in your mental abilities. The scientific method doesn't stop you from considering anything. All it forces you to do is reject ideas that are at odds with experiment.

[mistermann]

> What premises?

- The objective fact of the matter

- the scientific method produces vastly more accurate predictions than anything else humans have ever tried

- This is the whole reason science is even a thing

- I think

- that justifies

- a little bit of cockiness

- until someone actually comes up with something better

- [reality], the phenomenon that shall not be discussed, upon which your entire argument/experience/reality rests

> The scientific method has no premises

https://www.google.com/search?q=axioms+of+science+site%3Aphi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism

> it's just a method.

By "just", do you mean only?

If so, you have a burden of proof on your hands (and proofs of nonexistence are some of the trickiest, in no small, part because they typically have the appearance of being (thus "are") the easiest).

If not, what do you mean?

An angle to test your claim against: are scientists a part of science? If not, how does "science" accomplish anything in the material plane (concrete reality)?

> If you are "unable to consider" some possibility that is not the fault of the scientific method, that is a shortcoming in your mental abilities.

a) Is "I am unable to consider..." actually happening though, in shared reality? (Is this mind reading, or persuasive, misinformative rhetoric?)

b) What if your "Science is just (only) a method" premise is not true though? What if science also has culture (like most any organization involving Humans), or even a style of thinking (say, delusions of omniscience, or Pure Perfect Rationality)?

c) Might you have any shortcomings in your mental abilities, and is it possible that those shortcomings could cause unrealized/unrealizable (due to your cultural thinking style) error in your evaluation of my mental abilities?

> The scientific method doesn't stop you from considering anything. All it forces you to do is reject ideas that are at odds with experiment.

If these claims are True (in JTB, be careful your mind doesn't get so obsessed with the "J" that you forget all about the "T", or forget that the "B" is ever present, and very misleading), you should be able to present a proof (an articulation of one of your own, or simply link to or reference by name an existing one).

Do you have the ability do do that, and if so can you demonstrate you actually have the ability, by actually doing it, physically, in this thread?

(inb4: "well of course I'm just expressing my opinion, that's all everyone is ever doing", and various other rhetorical get out of jail free (or, look over there) cards science folks appeal to when they get caught engaging in Scientific Soothsaying.)

Also, let the record show that you did not even attempt to address the majority of my comment (perhaps you will later, I am just pointing it out).

[lisper]

I don't think you understand what the word "premise" means. None of the examples you give are premises. Most of them aren't even complete sentences.

Yes, I know that a lot of people say that science has premises. They are simply mistaken.

> By "just", do you mean only?

Yes.

> If so, you have a burden of proof on your hands

What exactly is it that you think I need to prove?

> If these claims are True

You need to read this:

https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/three-myths-about-scient...

particularly Myth #3.

[mistermann]

I am happy to stand as is:

- you leaving all of my questions unanswered

- you essentially declaring victory, as is the culture of science's style when encountering inconvenient questions, or the unknown.

Congratulations.

[lisper]

You can let it stand however you like, but the claim that I'm not answering your questions is manifestly false.

[mistermann]

If you were incorrect, would you necessarily(!) be able to detect it?

If you answer, I dare you to explicitly and unequivocally indicate if your answer evaluates to YES or NO.

[hju22_-3]

I think it's time for you to go touch some grass, and not make yourself out to be more of a fool than you already have.