Quote:
An example of a logical fallacy would be a "straw man argument", where one argues against a position never stated by the opposition in order to show the opponent as wrong. I don't think you've done this on purpose, but you have done this.
For one to discuss what "science" is based on (I'd argue a philosophical answer to that can only be "experimentation" or "observation") would require some real specificity as to what one meant by "science" and "base".
You seem to be trying to discuss "scientific method"... in which case you are simplifying it to the point of being wrong. Boiled down: A field of science attempts to make models of some aspect of realty which are useful in making predictions about future observations. Models which make testable predictions which turn out to be true are good models and those which don't are bad ones.
'Science' as in what the poster I quoted meant, specifically, the laws of physics.
'Base' as in the foundation of something, in this case: science.
If one of these models failed tomorrow, it would be a bad model right? Even if the model had been prevalent for a lengthy period of time, it would still be a bad model, correct? That's all I was trying to point out. Anyhow, this is quite far off topic now.
Originally Posted by JerryLove 
Actually the word for that is "induction".. the belief that the model that is accurate today will be accurate tomorrow. It is indeed assumed rather than proven, and no one worth their salt will tell you otherwise. What they will tell you is that there's nothing better to go by.
Belief?
Faith: A strongly held belief or theory. I think I just took it one level deeper. We're saying the same thing.
Originally Posted by JerryLove
I am a little confused. The proponents of super-human hearing that only works when they know what they are listening to are humble and those who don't make such magical claims lack humility?
My post quoted UE, so I tailored what I wrote as a reply to his post. I thought that that saying "I think both stances are valid" was enough. You can invert that humbleness bit and I will happily find that valid too. I don't think I could have been more explicit than "I think both stances are valid." Ironically, this is the kind of 'polarizing' I was referring to in that bit you quoted. You see the science and yet still people believe they hear a difference does not mean they are not really hearing a difference. Or hearing a difference does not mean that it's not just all in your head.
Edited by sphinxvc - 1/10/11 at 10:05pm
