|
|
|
|
|
|
by pleb
4304 days ago
|
|
|
"The only reason "science" would claim that your assertion is wrong is if your explanation doesn't agree with reality." Your statement is a circular reference to the problem of induction. You arbitrarily claim to be able to make accurate assertions of reality while at the same time agreeing that the essence of reality is unknowable. This reply of yours is full of circular reasoning. Stop using the word good without making your case for righteousness. You can't substitute it with practical or useful either, both infer benefit at the personal degree. Just because an expectation proved to be useful once, remember that the past does not predict the future. "Belief in the Causal Nexus is superstition" |
|
|
> You arbitrarily claim to be able to make accurate assertions of reality
Nope.
> while at the same time agreeing that the essence of reality is unknowable.
Yep. I guess? All I think is that it's okay if we don't know the true essence; science is still useful[0].
> Stop using the word good without making your case for righteousness.
Stop hijacking common words.
> You can't substitute it with practical or useful either, both infer benefit at the personal degree.
I don't know what that means.
> Just because an expectation proved to be useful once, remember that the past does not predict the future.
Depends what you mean by predict the future. Absolute truth? No. Useful[0] forecasts? Yes.
----
[0] dictionary.reference.com:
> useful: being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous, helpful, or of good effect