FEM: “I must disagree with you about the scientific method’s syllogistic structure. I’m not sure where you got this idea, but the examples provided have been pretty glaring. When I was in school we were taught that this is NOT a good chain of logic: “When it rains, it gets the ground wet.” “I see wet ground.” “Therefore it has rained.”
Me: Provide the documentation so I can examine it. I strongly doubt it. The proofs for evolution and the spinning globe have all fallen in line with that structure. Of course the syllogism is rarely if ever presented clearly, but that is the argument.
FEM: “No where was I taught this form! In fact we were taught this as a non-example of good logical progression!”
Me: So I’m to take your word for it ya? No.
FEM: “A much better approach would be to change the conclusion above: “Therefore it may have rained.” which simply adds “rain” to the list of possibilities on why the ground is wet.”
Me: Which would again change the nature of a hypothesis. The syllogism would then not begin with:
If Evolution is true…
If Heliocentrism is true…
it would be
If evolution is a possibility then X
Therefore evolution is possible.
That is not how evolution and the globe were presented to me in school. They were presented as absolute truths.
FEM: “Of course the scientific method encourages multiple avenues of exploration, not these silly dogmatic statements, where one is good enough for a rock-solid conclusion.”
Me: Again, I’ve received quite a bit of dogma from your ilk and I’m not taking your word for it. Evolution, Heliocentrism, the Moon Landing and Dinosaurs were not presented as mere possibilities to me. They were presented as absolute truths in pursuit of a total destruction of the Bible and the cause of the WASP in the modern world.
FEM: “For example, in the Flat Earth debate, there are many videos of the sun shrinking in size as it sets. I know this is due to the lack of a solar filter”
Me: Hold it right chea! Your problem is when you get this technical the arbitrary nature of the scientific method comes back to bite you in the ass. As I demonstrated in my recent video against Reds Rhetoric, there is still glare in the filtered image and how we define where the glare ends and the sun begins becomes impossible to determine. There is actually an infinite number of borderlines that can be drawn.
FEM: “but this type of video is presented as “proof” of a flat Earth, which should have the sun getting smaller as it “moves away.”
Me: Yes, as I do and will continue to do, because as you admit it gets smaller in the videos and your solar filter solution isn’t a solution. It’s a slippery slope. But the word proof is the issue. Depends on how technical you want to get and that all becomes very subjective. Not absolute and objective as Evolution and Heliocentrism were presented to me in school.