By CORNBREAD_R2
Updated: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:09:46 UTC

Consider this claim:

The scientific method is a generally reliable way of weighing competing truth claims about observable phenomena.

The problem:

In order to demonstrate the truth of that claim one has to use the scientific method, which would appear to be begging the question, a fallacy.

My immediate response to this would be to point out that even if the argument is a logical fallacy it doesn't mean that the claim about the efficacy of the SM is false. However, that still doesn't give me a way to argue for the efficacy of the SM without using the SM itself. (And of course, anyone who wanted to demonstrate that the SM was unreliable would also have to use the SM.)

A similar conundrum might be in store for the theist, for instance, who contends that God's existence can be logically proven in that they wouldn't be able to demonstrate that without using logic.

My questions:

Is there a way to argue for the efficacy of the SM without using the SM?

Is this even a real problem or just some kind of philosophical shell game?

TAGGED: CRITICAL THINKING, SCIENCE