Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?

[GrowingSmaller]

I suppose we can make a metaphysical claim about Hell "a fiery place of afterlife punishment" and be in Hell without knowing it.

So there is 1) an empirically grounded metaphysical description (lots of suffering and fire), 2) a personal situation (arggh!!!), and 3) an epistemic situation (I know Im in Hell now). One can have 1 and 2 without necessarily beloieing 3 excepting with an "immoral" an act of faith.

But without 3 one cant rightly complain to God about actually being in Hell, except in hypothetical mode. ie.e. "If I'm in Hell, then bah!"

After all, 1and 2 may may not be Hell after all. It could be a weird a-life simulation to test atheists mettle and philosophical resolve. What's to say there is no God, perhaps its all due to a programming error?

I think a consistent atheist position would be, if God given HELL exists it is immoral, but one can never actually know oneself to be there, even if one is. Seemingly, all one can claim is based on empirical observations not untestable fairy tales i.e. "heck its warm in here". Which, in itself, is probably insufficient justification for belief in God and God given Hell in Clifford's books.

I mean, there are potentially 100s of alternative explanations to the God-did-it hypothesis. All "empirically equivalent" with experience, and with no scientific means of testing between them...

If one were to call out "Look, God I am sorry" then Clifford would turn in his grave?

 

[Kylie]

I have a general idea but no precise definition. Go ahead if you have one...

Subjective is an opinion. Star Trek is better than Star Wars. Pizzas are better than burgers. There is no single absolute truth about them. You can't say that it is a fact Star Trek is better than Star Wars, because that determination comes down to a person's own point of view and while it may be true for some people, there are others who will say that Star Wars is by far superior.

Something objective, on the other hand, is something that is true for everyone. It is objectively true that the Pacific Ocean is the largest ocean on Earth. It is objectively true that William Shatner starred in the original series of Star Trek back in the 1960s. It can't be the case that is was William Shatner for some people, but for other people, Lloyd Bridges was the star. It was William Shatner for EVERYONE.

So when we are trying to find out about reality, subjective things don't cut it. If we want to be sure that what we have represents reality, then we must always try to find what is objective.

If you were to have a "dying expeience" and then a "judjement experience" then were sent to heavenly scenario, would that increase your faith in the existence of God. i.e,. from zero to + something?

If so, would the evidence be objective. If not, would the evidence be objective.

If it were not objective, would the belief "I've been judged but I'm in heaven now" be unreliable? Yes, no, or to some degree?

I am thinking along these lines. Atheists often claim eternal punishment in Hell would be immoral. But if there are no good standards available for the claim "I'm in Hell" then why bother with the prior claim about the morality of the situation? Especially when it (the morality claim) is treated as an epistemologically valid argument against God.


The point being: If one is agnostic about the possibility A) "being situated in Hell" then one cant be gnostic about B) "If I were in Hell, it would be immoral and so then I could claim it to be immoral" precisely because one would be sceptical (i.e. lacking proper knowledge) about A, but the basis knowing B to be true seems to depend on the possibility of knowing A, i.e. upon the possibility of knowing one is in Hell if one is in Hell, knowing what its like to be in Hell etc.

Otherwise its just an abstract argument. If one could be in Hell but never know it, what are the epistemological grounds for believing "Hell may exist" in the first place?

So, if AFAWK Hell experiences are subjective, are they just silly ideas to be dismissed like belief in fairies etc.

OTOH, if they are objective, what are the objective grounds for believing "I'm in Hell"?

"I've been judged, I'm on fire, its horrible, but belief its Hell is just as silly as belief a fairy tale." Are atheists committed to this kind of thinking in general?

I'm getting at a point here: are atheists being consistent, and intellectually superior, or are they prone to fallacy and bias just like everyone else?

Without some way to test that what I experienced was real - that it was not a hallucination or something like that - I could never be sure that what I experienced was objective.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Without some way to test that what I experienced was real - that it was not a hallucination or something like that - I could never be sure that what I experienced was objective.

So, can I argue "God exists" may be true for everyone, but to be classified as objective there also needs to be a test? So surely, if something is objective, it is so even if there is no one around to see for example. But it seems right: as you say to prove it one needs sufficient evidence of the right type. So, what is 1) the correct type and 2) the amount needed.

So, we need some kind of standard measuring device, then?

I'm no expert but I think in Islam there are indications of Gods existence, abductive arguments, appeals to the relative success of believers, but in this world no final proof.

e.g. 40.70 "Those who reject the Book and that with which We have sent Our Messenger; but they shall soon come to know."

This isn't to accept believers are agnostics, and have no good reason to believe. One can argue that they have more subtle intellects, perhaps?

Subjective is an opinion. Star Trek is better than Star Wars.

Secondly, cant I say that Star Wars is better than Star Trek to me. Its objective. I tested 10 episodes versus three movies. I find Star Treck boring etc. Yet, its a personal truth. Just like, I have could an allergy to peanuts for example. Not everyone has such an allergy, but to me pistachios are better, and that's an objective fact. If truths about allergies can be personal yet objective, why not aesthetics?

I could make the same analogy with chemicals. Not all things ignite when exposed to fresh air, but some things do (theyre called pyrophoric substances) , and that is a fact.

The opposing view would seem to be "For all you know, being a subjective mater I could well have imagined the reasons for preferring Star Wars even though it measured up to my highest personal standards AFAICT" which seems a silly thing to argue.


Couldnt 1 (correct type of evidence)) turn out to be "I enjoyed Star Wars much more" and 2 (sufficient amount of evidence)) be "I have ample evidence via sufficient experience of both series..."?

... making my judgement objective yet personal.

Ok, its an opinion, but its still an objective fact it was better to me. Just like I don't like being whipped, and that's not imaginary either. I certainly wouldn't want to go to Hell. Even if its "subjective" I can certainly tell it from a dream or a hallucination.

Something objective, on the other hand, is something that is true for everyone.

Does that fact that coronavirus kills only a few out of 100 people, and that mortality rates differ for age groups i.e. mortality rates increasing as one gets older, mean that its not objectively deadly?

 

[Kylie]

So, can I argue "God exists" may be true for everyone, but to be classified as objective there also needs to be a test? So surely, if something is objective, it is so even if there is no one around to see for example. But it seems right: as you say to prove it one needs sufficient evidence of the right type. So, what is 1) the correct type and 2) the amount needed.

So, we need some kind of standard measuring device, then?

I'm no expert but I think in Islam there are indications of Gods existence, abductive arguments, appeals to the relative success of believers, but in this world no final proof.

e.g. 40.70 "Those who reject the Book and that with which We have sent Our Messenger; but they shall soon come to know."

This isn't to accept believers are agnostics, and have no good reason to believe. One can argue that they have more subtle intellects, perhaps?

Pretty much. If something is objectively true, it is true even if nobody believes it. The Sun was undergoing nuclear reactions even back when nobody understood what nuclear reactions were.

Secondly, cant I say that Star Wars is better than Star Trek to me. Its objective. I tested 10 episodes versus three movies. I find Star Treck boring etc. Yet, its a personal truth. Just like, I have could an allergy to peanuts for example. Not everyone has such an allergy, but to me pistachios are better, and that's an objective fact. If truths about allergies can be personal yet objective, why not aesthetics?

It is an objective fact that you think Star Wars is better than Star Trek, but that doesn't mean that it is an objective fact that Star Wars is better. The only thing we agree is a fact here is that you have a particular opinion. And opinions are, by definition, subjective things.

Likewise, we can say it is an objective fact that a person has an allergy, but that doesn't mean that their belief that peanuts are inferior is also objective.

I could make the same analogy with chemicals. Not all things ignite when exposed to fresh air, but some things do (theyre called pyrophoric substances) , and that is a fact.

Yes, but the difference here is that whether those particular chemicals ignite when exposed to fresh air does not depend on the person. If a substance is pyrophoric, it will ignite no matter what the person conducting the experiment thinks. When it comes to Star Trek vs Star Wars, it very much does depend on the person.

The opposing view would seem to be "For all you know, being a subjective mater I could well have imagined the reasons for preferring Star Wars even though it measured up to my highest personal standards AFAICT" which seems a silly thing to argue.


Couldnt 1 (correct type of evidence)) turn out to be "I enjoyed Star Wars much more" and 2 (sufficient amount of evidence)) be "I have ample evidence via sufficient experience of both series..."?

... making my judgement objective yet personal.

Ok, its an opinion, but its still an objective fact it was better to me. Just like I don't like being whipped, and that's not imaginary either. I certainly wouldn't want to go to Hell. Even if its "subjective" I can certainly tell it from a dream or a hallucination.

I agree that it's an objective fact that you prefer Star Wars, since that can be measured, and it doesn't matter who does the measuring, they're always going to get the result that you prefer Star Wars.

But remember, you preferring Star Wars doesn't mean that everyone is going to prefer Star Wars.

Does that fact that coronavirus kills only a few out of 100 people, and that mortality rates differ for age groups i.e. mortality rates increasing as one gets older, mean that its not objectively deadly?

It is objectively deadly because it is a fact that people have died as a direct result of it. Doesn't mean it has to kill everyone who gets it.

If people conduct their own investigations into whether coronavirus has killed anyone, they will all find that it has killed people. That makes it objective. It would not be possible for different people to get different results, say person A finds it kills everyone who gets infected, person B finds it only kills some who get infected, and person C finds it never kills anyone who gets infected. That sort of result is not possible with an objective truth, it can only happen with a subjective truth.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It is an objective fact that you think Star Wars is better than Star Trek, but that doesn't mean that it is an objective fact that Star Wars is better. The only thing we agree is a fact here is that you have a particular opinion. And opinions are, by definition, subjective things.

I tend to a gree. It would simply be a misuse of English, maybe, to state that an opinion about the value of a film is "objectively true". But, maybe common usage is mixed up?

After all definitions are based on such usage, but the hoi polloi are not philosophical experts.

If we say "That philosopher uses English badly, calling opinions about Star Wars "objective" when by definition they're subjective" cant someone counter - Hey, that may well be "Argumentum ad Populum" - i.e. appeal to the people, and their common usage, and the common kind of grammar they use to derive conclusions about films from?

Appeal to popularity - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But regarding grammar, specifically "philosophical grammar" and language as a form of life, a quote:

"Grammar is not abstract, it is situated within the regular activity with which language-games are interwoven...

Forms of life can be understood as changing and contingent, dependent on culture, context, history, etc; this appeal to forms of life grounds a relativistic reading of Wittgenstein."
Ludwig Wittgenstein (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The point being a question can be raised: If other grammars are possible, and "Star Wars is better objectively" can be a true statement in another language system (say syatem B rather than A, where its not an error of speech a priori), what independent 3rd measure is one to use to judge between the two forms of life, or i.e. between language games A and B?

Maybe we're stuck with good English for the moment, but that doesn't entail we are right necessarily. Get me?




Sorry for not responding to all points, I've been a bit diverted, and intend to get back soon.

 

[Kylie]

I tend to a gree. It would simply be a misuse of English, maybe, to state that an opinion about the value of a film is "objectively true". But, maybe common usage is mixed up?

After all definitions are based on such usage, but the hoi polloi are not philosophical experts.

If we say "That philosopher uses English badly, calling opinions about Star Wars "objective" when by definition they're subjective" cant someone counter - Hey, that may well be "Argumentum ad Populum" - i.e. appeal to the people, and their common usage, and the common kind of grammar they use to derive conclusions about films from?

Appeal to popularity - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But regarding grammar, specifically "philosophical grammar" and language as a form of life, a quote:


The point being a question can be raised: If other grammars are possible, and "Star Wars is better objectively" can be a true statement in another language system (say syatem B rather than A, where its not an error of speech a priori), what independent 3rd measure is one to use to judge between the two forms of life, or i.e. between language games A and B?

Maybe we're stuck with good English for the moment, but that doesn't entail we are right necessarily. Get me?




Sorry for not responding to all points, I've been a bit diverted, and intend to get back soon.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that a subjective opinion can become an objective fact simply by changing our grammar? No. Reality doesn't work that way.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Some questions then:


Ok, is it logically impossible for another community to class what you call "subjective" (a film review, a comparison between films) as having objective merit?

For example, if there are standard measures of "a good cinema film" can't a comparison be made? Like, ones longer than 2 seconds in length tend to be more entertaining and engaging, and can be regarded as "better value for money".

What is the difference between an artistic standard measure, and for example a meter rule as a standard with which to measure a red carpet?

You may say that the film review is a personal opinion, but wasn't the meter rules conception down to a personal opinion in its inception. There were no standard measures books in the Garden of Eden, for Adam and Eve to rely upon. They were invented, with a purpose in mind.

If you say that art involves a person's subjetive response as part of the reference system, and people differ in those responses, then so what. Each person sees a different rainbow, some people are colour blind etc. People disagree about rainbows and rightly so. To one its vivid, to a near bystander its faded. Does that make "rainbow-ology" a non science, something non-factual?

If I say "the carpet is red" and you say "not to colour blind people" what does that make of the objective standards of measuring redness? And I presume this is a point, that measuring a entertaining film is more complicated than measuring a carpet, but lets imagine a google supercomputer for a moment. Input some aesthetic standards and let it view a film. Is the result, the review, objective or subjective?

And a point here, worth picking up on. If its unethical to believe upon insufficuient evidence, what right has anyone to hold opinions such as "that film was great"? If there are no universally acceptable standards, isn't it like faith in God, a silly pastime with no factual merit. Belief without evidence. None whatsoever?

If faith is unethical, what about the Oscars?

 

[Kylie]

Ok, is it logically impossible for another community to class what you call "subjective" (a film review, a comparison between films) as having objective merit?

I don't see how something can be subjective and objective at the same time.

For example, if there are standard measures of "a good cinema film" can't a comparison be made? Like, ones longer than 2 seconds in length tend to be more entertaining and engaging, and can be regarded as "better value for money".

It would depend on how you determine and measure the goodness of a film.

What is the difference between an artistic standard measure, and for example a meter rule as a standard with which to measure a red carpet?

Art is subjective and different people have different opinions about it. That's why one person may love a movie, but someone else hates that same movie.

The definition of how long a meter is has been precisely defined, and you can't have different values for different people.

You may say that the film review is a personal opinion, but wasn't the meter rules conception down to a personal opinion in its inception. There were no standard measures books in the Garden of Eden, for Adam and Eve to rely upon. They were invented, with a purpose in mind.

A meter is defined as the distance a beam of light travels in a vacuum in a time of 1/299792458 of a second. This definition is the same for everyone. It is not open to personal interpretation.

If you say that art involves a person's subjetive response as part of the reference system, and people differ in those responses, then so what. Each person sees a different rainbow, some people are colour blind etc. People disagree about rainbows and rightly so. To one its vivid, to a near bystander its faded. Does that make "rainbow-ology" a non science, something non-factual?

The beauty, shape, position, brightness, etc of a rainbow are indeed different for each person, as each person sees the rainbow from a different position, so they see it reflecting off different raindrops.

The physics describing how rainbows are formed are the same for everyone.

If I say "the carpet is red" and you say "not to colour blind people" what does that make of the objective standards of measuring redness? And I presume this is a point, that measuring a entertaining film is more complicated than measuring a carpet, but lets imagine a google supercomputer for a moment. Input some aesthetic standards and let it view a film. Is the result, the review, objective or subjective?

True, what you see as red may be different to what I see as red, even if only in the slightest way, so our experiences of redness are indeed subjective.

But if we measured the precise wavelength of the light being reflected, we will both reach the same conclusion.

And a point here, worth picking up on. If its unethical to believe upon insufficuient evidence, what right has anyone to hold opinions such as "that film was great"? If there are no universally acceptable standards, isn't it like faith in God, a silly pastime with no factual merit. Belief without evidence. None whatsoever?

If faith is unethical, what about the Oscars?

You know, I really don't think you understand the difference between subjective and objective at all.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I don't see how something can be subjective and objective at the same time.

The idea is, we have sensory apparatus and a basic perceprtion of the world, as youngsters, and to that culture accretes or adds on a superstructure of language, with specific rules for terms like "objective" and "subjective"; embedded ina a social reality. If they (the terms) indeed exist at all.

So, the rules for one imagined people using "subjective" and "objective" may be similar to ours, but such an imaginary scenario - a slightly different langauge game and form of life - could actually highlight something worthwhile and valid at the same time should they differ at times in definitions and usage.

It seems like "the unexamined life is not worth living" could apply to language too. We can examine usage, and instead of making direct inferences form everyday usage, think things through.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Art is subjective and different people have different opinions about it. That's why one person may love a movie, but someone else hates that same movie.

The definition of how long a meter is has been precisely defined, and you can't have different values for different people.



A meter is defined as the distance a beam of light travels in a vacuum in a time of 1/299792458 of a second. This definition is the same for everyone. It is not open to personal interpretation.

Isn't length relative to frame of reference though, if we speed up things shrink IIRC.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

You know, I really don't think you understand the difference between subjective and objective at all.

I'm not sure I do.

If I were to rate a film for excitement, giving it marks out of ten, and people agreed, wouldn't that indicate we experienced and responded to real and true and relevant properties of the film in the same or similar way?

I liked the film, they liked the film, we all found it much more exciting than another group condemned to watching paint dry in isolation . But this has nothing to do with the propertied of the film, or the paint, its purely subjective?

If I say a quartz crystal diffracts light, but such crystals vary slightly in the patterns thy create, would that be a fair analogy. People watch the film and give different opinions, but still general patterns can be observed.

People criticise films according to rules, and that's subjetive. Quartz diffracts light according to rules, and that's objective.

 

[Kylie]

The idea is, we have sensory apparatus and a basic perceprtion of the world, as youngsters, and to that culture accretes or adds on a superstructure of language, with specific rules for terms like "objective" and "subjective"; embedded ina a social reality. If they (the terms) indeed exist at all.

So, the rules for one imagined people using "subjective" and "objective" may be similar to ours, but such an imaginary scenario - a slightly different langauge game and form of life - could actually highlight something worthwhile and valid at the same time should they differ at times in definitions and usage.

It seems like "the unexamined life is not worth living" could apply to language too. We can examine usage, and instead of making direct inferences form everyday usage, think things through.

I don't see how this answers my question.

 

[Kylie]

Isn't length relative to frame of reference though, if we speed up things shrink IIRC.

Only for someone outside that frame of reference though.

 

[Kylie]

I'm not sure I do.

If I were to rate a film for excitement, giving it marks out of ten, and people agreed, wouldn't that indicate we experienced and responded to real and true and relevant properties of the film in the same or similar way?

I liked the film, they liked the film, we all found it much more exciting than another group condemned to watching paint dry in isolation . But this has nothing to do with the propertied of the film, or the paint, its purely subjective?

It means that all those people had a similar subjective conclusion. It doesn't mean that it becomes objective.

If I say a quartz crystal diffracts light, but such crystals vary slightly in the patterns thy create, would that be a fair analogy. People watch the film and give different opinions, but still general patterns can be observed.

People criticise films according to rules, and that's subjetive. Quartz diffracts light according to rules, and that's objective.

And here's the difference.

You go from talking about how people react to talking about something that can be measured by multiple people.

Two people can watch the same movie and have different opinions about it. That shows it is subjective.

Two people can measure the way a crystal refracts light - and they will ALWAYS get the same results, because the crystal doesn't change the way it refracts light based on who is watching.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

This is a random thought. If idealism is logically possible, then "objective" things may not exist. It may not be sensible, but it is a possibility. Therefore, going from definitions to reality, i.e. saying its defined as objective settles the enquiry, has its weaknesses.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I don't see how this answers my question.

How could a thing be both subjective and objective, at the same time?


Well, lets look at idealism. Its possible that the whole world is a picture in my mind, and that's all there is. Now, a language game for an idealist will differ from that of a realist. A realist believes in objectivity, whereas for an idealist its ruled out in harmony with the axioms or presuppositions of idealism. Both will talk about the moon for instance, but the former wouldn't recognise objectivity as a valid category.

To an idealist the category "objective" may be a fiction, or like a fairy take. Whereas for someone objectively minded, idealism itself will be a philosophical invention.

So, its possible to "play" both games linguistically. And also likewise the different rules each one speaks by, the "grammar" of the term objective or subjective, will differ for each player.

From within the grammar of realism (i.e. the usage of the terms "moon" "illusion" "real" "dream-like" and their relation to appearances etc.), idealism is invalid, and vice versa. If not invalid, its at least semantically deviant.

If you say, but the thing itself, tho bro, it is objective by definition, and that's what we're discussing.

I could just rule out that whole language game as not particularly necessary, but a voluntary response to the situation facing you, a choice between 'empirically equivalent' (i.e. relating to Underdetermination - Wikipedia) theoretical takes on life.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Two people can watch the same movie and have different opinions about it. That shows it is subjective.

Two people can measure the way a crystal refracts light - and they will ALWAYS get the same results, because the crystal doesn't change the way it refracts light based on who is watching.

Two crystals refract light slightly differently, and two brains view the film differently.

Ok, someone may get bored with repeats, whereas a crystal gives the same results... but:


Isn't that because the brain changes more than quartz over time?

What if a brain scientist could formulate F1+B1=C1, and F1+B2=C2. Film 1 plus brain 1 equals criticism 1.... With as much predictibe accuracy as a quartz scientist looking at refractive patterns formed by different shaped crystals.

Now, to add a bonus puzzle, a Shintoist believes that a quartz crystal is conscious. What then? Is the pattern of light the product of subjectivity all of a sudden, in theory at least?

 

[Kylie]

How could a thing be both subjective and objective, at the same time?


Well, lets look at idealism. Its possible that the whole world is a picture in my mind, and that's all there is. Now, a language game for an idealist will differ from that of a realist. A realist believes in objectivity, whereas for an idealist its ruled out in harmony with the axioms or presuppositions of idealism. Both will talk about the moon for instance, but the former wouldn't recognise objectivity as a valid category.

To an idealist the category "objective" may be a fiction, or like a fairy take. Whereas for someone objectively minded, idealism itself will be a philosophical invention.

So, its possible to "play" both games linguistically. And also likewise the different rules each one speaks by, the "grammar" of the term objective or subjective, will differ for each player.

From within the grammar of realism (i.e. the usage of the terms "moon" "illusion" "real" "dream-like" and their relation to appearances etc.), idealism is invalid, and vice versa. If not invalid, its at least semantically deviant.

If you say, but the thing itself, tho bro, it is objective by definition, and that's what we're discussing.

I could just rule out that whole language game as not particularly necessary, but a voluntary response to the situation facing you, a choice between 'empirically equivalent' (i.e. relating to Underdetermination - Wikipedia) theoretical takes on life.

I get the feeling you are playing with words rather than working with what those words actually mean.

The difference between subjective and objective is not hard to understand, and I am starting to suspect that you are intentionally trying to muddy the waters here.

 

[Kylie]

Two crystals refract light slightly differently, and two brains view the film differently.

Ok, someone may get bored with repeats, whereas a crystal gives the same results... but:


Isn't that because the brain changes more than quartz over time?

What if a brain scientist could formulate F1+B1=C1, and F1+B2=C2. Film 1 plus brain 1 equals criticism 1.... With as much predictibe accuracy as a quartz scientist looking at refractive patterns formed by different shaped crystals.

Now, to add a bonus puzzle, a Shintoist believes that a quartz crystal is conscious. What then? Is the pattern of light the product of subjectivity all of a sudden, in theory at least?

Again, you seem to be trying to muddy the waters.

If you measure how far it is around the Earth's equator, you will get a certain value. Anyone else who measures the same distance will get the same value. That is objective.

If you rank a list of 100 films in order from best to worst, then you will likely get a different order than me because you have different opinions on how good each film is. That is subjective.

It's not hard. Stop trying to make it hard.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I get the feeling you are playing with words rather than working with what those words actually mean.

The difference between subjective and objective is not hard to understand, and I am starting to suspect that you are intentionally trying to muddy the waters here.

I thought the scientific spirit was: destroy theory if possible?

The efforts being on finding limits alongside finding facts?

Of course I could just carry on with everyone else and copy. Is that the idea?

I'm not directing at you personally.

I think alongside empirical limits of a idea, there are also philosophical limits to science. Just as an idea can be falsified, a whole epistemic system (i.e. scientific realism itself) can be exchanged for another e.g. subjective idealism...

Its no big deal.

It seems to go like this tho. "Science is so virtuous, so humble. Atheists embrace science. Therefore they share the same virtue. Humility. "

Then:

"This tactic wins so many arguments. 'Theists are bigoted', for instance, is a winner.Therefore. Any criticism of science must be wrong..."

Seems more like ego defence.

Which actually is a rejection of the virtue of humility, as it would be making a necessary fact (it can NEVER be wrong as a method) out of a contingent one, as science methodology is not tautology therefore it can err.*

If its correct science could be wrong (cf modal logic, if a statement like "E+MC^2is contingent, it could be wrong), then this apparently has two aspects:

the a posteriori limits (ideas are falsifiable, e.g. the concept of ether, which is a very common theme) and the
a priori limits of science (there is at least one alternative possible philosophy of reality, like 'Its all just a sophisticated dream', which is in principle untestable, tho, but this seems to be an if not THE taboo to confess).

What's to lose?

Medicine, technology etc. I know. Science has utility. But such utility doesn't falsify "I'm only dreaming" as an a priori perspective. You'll already know that I imagine.

So, its only a matter of pride.


*Or, maybe scientific methodology is tautologically valid? IDK... Seems like as fractals approach infinity with each iteration (AFAIK), science approaches truth with each adjustment. So we have method, feedback from reality, self correction, further advance, but never THE truth absolutely.

So if 1 2 3 4 5.....100, 101, 102 etc. are taken as measures of epistemic warrant, with more advances science having a higher number, then science's warrant can approach infinity, and grow over time, but never "get there".

Einstein improved upon Newton. Its not like Newton was totally wrong, relativity was incrementally better. Science improves by matter of degree not matter of kind. Science is "similar" to reality, and the history of science is like a fractal zoom in on truth, but science is never absolute reality itself.