If you wish to pursue this point further, I have provided two links earlier in the topic, I will try to clear up any confusion curious onlookers have (lol). But otherwise you can consider this conversation "won".
Your links have served their purpose: they have provided a probabilistic argument for why science can be useful. But no one has disputed this. By the same token, if you wish to pursue things further (and the ball's in your court), I'd like for you to take the time and actually respond to the questions asked of you. Here are a few you've conveniently skipped over (italicized comments are yours; quoted ones are mine):
Because thus far you have not shown me *any* system which would have that standard be fulfilled.
"What, do you mean the "standard" where scientific truth isn't *the* truth? I provided a number of them already, so here they are again: phenomenology, Buddhism, Christianity, Nietzscehan philosophy (or hypermodernism), and Marxism. We can throw in Hegelianism (speculative philosophy) as well, and this is really only scratching the surface.
Your job is now to ask a) what these things mean (because you've made your ignorance on basic philosophical questions rather clear to everyone reading this conversation), and b) once I clarify, try to defend science as somehow "better" than these epistemic accounts. "
We can TALK about something called chairs, people, thoughts, joys, emotions etc. but we have to remember that it all REDUCES down to our best knowledge of 'basement level reality'.
"So what I was saying all along turns out to be correct: we can use other perspectives if we'd like, but only the scientific perspective is the correct one.
So again: what makes science true?"
and the big one...
Because I once wasn't a reductionist and the universe was confusing and moved in seemingly random ways and now I am and so many things fall into place. It exorcises my feelings of confusion and also fit in with what I believed about the world from science before that. Note that now my justification for it has changed from that and I'll need to parse it out. But yeah. That's the CAUSAL chain which led to it. Now if you want something else you can try and specify.
"So you're a reductionist because it "makes you feel good"? What part of having no value to your life helps things "fall into place"? Why put your faith in science? If it "makes you happy," then why not simply throw yourself into the world and enjoy your life? Why not be religious, marry a pretty religious girl, have a nice family, and live a normal life?
Your major claim for believing in science is complacency. Notice that there are no claims of "truth" here; presumably, if the scientific was utterly debunked tomorrow from a logical perspective, you'd still cling to it.
[how would you respond to such objections?]"
--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9