Separation of Science and State

[Beskar]

if you had even bothered to read the thread you wouldve seen that i already said why not. im asking you a question and you dont give an answer. its as simple as that.

Nope, I answered it and you won't accept the answer, instead giving an unfair request to easily do a dissertation worth of work just to come to same exact conclusion.

[The Stranger]

all you have told me is something shady like, the nature of the method is the best one. but that doesnt prove anything. you just make a claim which you cant back up.

[Beskar]

all you have told me is something shady like, the nature of the method is the best one. but that doesnt prove anything. you just make a claim which you cant back up.

That's incorrect, it is easy to back-up and you know exactly where to look but you refuse to. Science methodology is the best one, given the overwhelming evidence and lack of any credible alternatives.

[The Stranger]

given the overwhelming evidence? the overwhelming evidence is all given within the scientic box, it is all scientific evidence. the christians in 1400 ad thought they had overwhelming evidence for the proof of god.

you say the nature of the scientific matter is the best one. but that is something which cant be proven. it cant be proven scientifically because the foundation of the method cant be scientifically proven, you will accept in your premise what you try to prove. i claim it cant be proven otherwise because at core level there is always something which has to be accepted without it being possible to prove.

the lack of any credible and consistent (if that should be a criteria) alternatives is your best argument. but how objective is this argument? you cant define credible by scientific terms. so you would have to come up with a different criterions. if credible means believable, than the argument fails because there are many alternatives widely believed.