How would you respond?

Through rationality and reason which is made possible by God

Probably with a critique on how science is conducted, or just go with the epistemological angle.

Your an idiot
>can’t stump scientific positivism with this sophistry

I just took a shit on scientific positivism

No you did not, and nobody thinks you did. You're just being weird now.

>No wait please

Science has become more doctrinal over the years though. Look at what happens to anyone who criticizes some of the tenets of evolution , or global warming, or relativity. They're laughed out of the room.

Because evolution at this point is foundational to like eight different scientific fields, and is so self evidently true it's like denying gravity.

Science is the process of gathering facts of the known and knowable universe.
“Truth” is one of those squishy words, and as the comic shows, it strays into gut feelings, instinct, blind faith and can be used for plain old hypotheticals.

Rationality and reason ARE science, just dressed up differently.

Well that's usually because there's so much work supporting those theories. Those who disagree are usually doing so for personal bias instead of scientific reasoning. None of the major camps against those ideas can oppose them scientifically.

>How would you respond
Assuming I made the first claim, I would say that only science has lead to discovery of truth. This has been proven empirically, or “through science.” I don’t actually know for certain that only science can lead to truth, though the past indicates this, because the future is unknowable, and we can only guess that it will continue with the same trends. So there’s no reason to use anything other than science until it’s first proven that we’ve arrived at truth without science.

evolution is not at all as well supported as some of the results in hard sciences. I believe in the mainstream view on evolution but you can't do much in the way of experiments to provide evidence for long term macro evolution. Fields like geology have this same basic constraint.

The current physics model is obviously missing a lot of shit as well

Allah: 1
Infidels: 0

Attached: D8fCYWpXoAExONd.jpg (680x365, 75K)

Yeah, science is just another system of beliefs. Can we go back to our book threads?

yeah s-science have n-nothing to do with truth hehe
>says as he types in a computer

You need to presuppose the validity of logic in order to justify the use of logic. Some things are just a matter of faith.

Holy fucking shit you're an idiot.

You are clearly being disingenuous. Science IS a doctrine, a dogma ....
It’s the cult of Snoo and most people around you love Snoo, their extraterrestrial omniscient virtual man-god

Attached: 6D065FF6-2AE5-42F9-B324-4D725FE080D0.png (2862x3972, 326K)

By admitting fault, not sure why I would continue to hold a position that can be so thoroughly debunked with a simple question.

Technology doesn't "prove" that you know something for sure.
Case in point, sundials work regardless if you believe that the Sun orbits the Earth

Name one system of truth that doesn't use one of these
-The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other

-The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum

-The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma

It would be nice to know and understand the axioms of existence

technique is the prove that we know for sure. I dont know why this board try to hard to negate the truths we know in order to sell you some metaphysical dimension of abstract "i only know i dont know" crap

>Look at what happens to anyone who criticizes some of the tenets of evolution , or global warming, or relativity. They're laughed out of the room.
All adressed by Kuhn.

sense perception and inductive reasoning xD

But the hypothesis is retarded.
What "truth" has science ever demonstrated? There literally is nothing, it is just approximations of reality.

Yes, science has nothing to do with truth.
What allows us to build computers, or anything else, are very good approximations of reality.

Someone should edit the second guy to say what about the science of race and iq

>Rationality and reason ARE science
What is rational about Newton's laws?

Physics is a good example because it's all wrong. You can't have both Newtonian physics AND quantum physics, there is only one kind that we haven't quantified yet.

Exactly, the whole reason why relativity came to exist was because Newton's laws weren't giving the right results.

Physics is creating models of the Universe that are supposed to be as accurate as possible, but they are always approximations, never the "true" way of how the universe functions.

those approximations are "reality", after that there's only delusions until proved, but a very important part of the approximations of science is that it know it's own limits and is continualy pushing them unlike other kinds of epistomological systems

I've never been clear on what logic exactly IS. I believe in it. I think it's right. I think it seems to work empirically. But I'm really not sure.

Pattern recognition?

>those approximations are "reality"
No, else physics would have been solved after Newton.

>but a very important part of the approximations of science is that it know it's own limits and is continualy pushing them unlike other kinds of epistomological systems
Obviously yes, but to push something you first have to accept that it isn't perfect in the first place.

You need to "prove" you know something to build technology that can consistently demonstrate our hypothesized models of reality. It's not about use of technology after the fact it was developed. You can say that an Airbus can be built without knowing anything about flight by simply exactly replicating every part of it, but it's an entirely different thing to tell a civilization to build something equivalent to the Airbus from scratch. And I know you yourself would find it impossible to believe that a civilization without the sufficient knowledge of the physics of flight could ever accidentally produce something like an Airbus.

Attached: Lufthansa_Airbus_A320-211_D-AIQT_01_(cropped).jpg (2610x1631, 1.87M)

thinking about Heidegger's gestell and your post I always remember pic related, because taking them to it's logical conclusion get us in a very solipsistic dimension, where no real communication can be done. A more radical understading seems to me is that there's a dimension of truth in science and technology which cannot be outright negated, the more we try to be skeptic about it the more it impose itself

Attached: images-4.jpg (443x332, 28K)

>You need to "prove" you know something to build technology that can consistently demonstrate our hypothesized models of reality.
No, evidently you don't.
Btw. that Airbus was built using models of the physical universe that are known to be wrong.

I mean engineering is THE field of "wrong" but it works well enough.

perfect

All epistemic evaluations require the use of assumptions. However, the assumptions one uses in sciences are logical extensions of ones you use to live your every day life, except more conscious of the biases you find in humans after careful examinations. One shouldn't discount everyday reasoning just because it's less thorough though. When you cross the street, you don't peer review a conclusion on when to go. You just use your own eyes.