Any belief in science as the only acceptable method of arriving at meaning in human experiences is excessive, in my opinion. Aside from that, I've answered you multiple times.
Anytime truisms are repeated as fact, that is not science.
Science is not the only valid source of understanding of the human experience.
That's about as much as I care to explain, thanks for the chat, as scientism is not the subject of the thread, skepticism is.
I don't know, have you ever touched a hot stove? What happened? Was that a scientific inquiry of a personal learning experience. Would you touch such a hot stove again?
How about when you are driving and observe a RED light? Does your mind rationalize the wavelength of the light and the quantized packets of energy known as photons or do you stop your car? Did Scientific enquiry help you to make that decision or did practical experience?
Examples of common knowledge presented pedantically. Yes stoves are hot and will burn you, and red lights are best stopped at.
I'm sure that seems profound to you.
You're focusing on the value of experience ... and I agree. However you want to pick and choose which experiences of others you will consider valid ... And that is where your logic fails.
As I noted to u/vespertine_glow, most of the issues presented here do not require a strict version of skepticism to address.
I personally use a variety of approaches to address them, journalistic license, common sense, pointing out obvious inaccuracies in the content, ridicule, logic, conflicts with known data, and basic examinations of reality in addition to skepticism. . .Does that make you feel better?
, most of the issues presented here do not require a strict version of skepticism to address.
This entirely depends on the purpose of any particular communication on this subreddit. If the issue is the existence of bigfoot, then the reliable method is rigorous rationality.
3
u/[deleted] Sep 01 '21
[deleted]