More likely to be true? I believe that it is, but but that is not a postion arrived at rationally from the empirical evidence.
So no one conclusion can rationally be considered as any more likely to be correct than any other by your definition. But simultaneously you think we can rationally consider some conclusions as more reliable than others. We can also rationally believe in, and have confidence in, some conclusions over others. All without rationally considering any one conclusion as any more likely to be correct than any other. And you see no contradiction here?
You consider reliability, belief and confidence to have absolutely nothing to do with anything that relates to considering conclusions as correct or incorrect, likely or unlikely?
You don't understand my position.
Your position as I do understand it is truly ridiculous.
You are saying that it is irrational and pseudo-skeptical to be highly skeptical that ethereal telepathic flying pilchards are responsible for aeroplanes flying. You are saying that we cannot consider this possibility as more or less likely than air flow and aerodynamics being responsible for aeroplanes flying.
Please tell me I am wrong. Because at this point I am starting to lose the will to live.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
