Because any evidence one has the other can claim the complete opposite with the same evidence. YOU said that.I dont see that every imagined concept would be equally valid if that were correct.
"Prove", no. Validate, yes.Nevertheless, the scientific method does not prove anything nor validate anything.
There is no such "absolute" experience because experiences are subjective. Hence with the scientific method another scientist on the other side of the world can test someone else's claims OBjectively.The scientific method is an attempt to REDUCE BIAS; but the reduction of bias and the human ability to experience absolute reality are two different things.
No, that's why peer-review is in place. But when a scientific concept reaches a few hundred thousand science papers all supporting the concept that tells you it's working.Or is it that whatever has been approached with the scientific method is automatically valid and accurate?
If it didn't you'd still be in the stone age.I swear you keep jabbering about that scientific method crap as if it makes a difference.
Are viruses alive?There are only two objective unambiguous answers in all of existence: YES and NO.
Either a this IS or that thing NOT. No amount of procedure and 'methodologizing' can get around that simple IS or NOT, YES or NO.
That's because you're intellectually dishonest. If a science works it must at least be partially true.Totally superfluous to the discussion. I could give a rat's @ss where you send your space craft.
And then those interpretations are tested. Science thinks the Earth is old. Fundies think it's young. Tests show the fundie model would sterilize the universe. So which interpretation is correct?Let them roll their eyes till they fall from the sockets.
But if YOU were not there; you cannot know beyond the shadow of a doubt what occurred,so we have all authority to ask "Where YOU THERE!?"
If you were not there, all your conclusions and descriptions will be dependent on evidence the way YOU choose interpret it.
Yes, but ONLY within the confines of that logic.You have resorted to the confusing of terminologies (that only you seem to be able to understand)to attempt to make us fail.
Anything can be logical.
The validity of a logical argument is based on what the premises are.
As long as the conclusion is consistent with the premises of an argument, the argument is logical and sound.
That's TOTAL backwards. Without axioms you HAVE no logic.LOGIC DOES NOT DEPEND ON AXIOMS; BUT AXIOMS DEPEND ON LOGIC.