>>2965171>Theories are not logically validated by experimental evidence.>Revisiting the assumptions of the Scientific processYour train of thought is "philosophical", not "scientific". You make an argument againist "science" in general, but the argment you construct cannot be deemed valid or invalid according to your system of reasoing. Nor can your argument be deemed as a nesscary course of action, or just some bullshit you "feel". The system you construct in not in your favor, nor it it in the favor of the scientific method.
It basically helps no one, nor provides any new insignt into anything. All you are doing is a big circle-jerk, where no one gets off. All you are doing is playing games.
If you stumble upon somthing 'better then science', that provides us with all the shit science have provided us, then by all means let's see it. Until then you statements, while nice things to comtemplate, and im sure fun to thing about while drunk, end up being uttelry meaningless, and unfruitful, just like most of philosophy.
Although, I do understand what you are saying, and your points are well made, there is no point arguing with you, cause we could not come to a concenus on 'nesscary assumptions and reasoning'. If you deny truth and validity, there is no discussion or argument. You are constructing a religion, not a logically consistant form of reasonig. Good day.
