Non-scientific evidence

Perhaps I could give another way of looking at things; what you described is still data. Reliable data does not guarantee reliable conclusions, in the sense that we could conclude the weights are falling at 9.8 m/s2 because that is how hard the invisible gnomes pull things toward their underground burrows.This would of course be an unreliable conclusion, as from it we might infer that if the moon also has invisible gnomes they would pull with similar vigor.In a more broad sense however, it isn't particularly important that scientific theories are correct strictly speaking. If we adapted the hoarding gnome theory of gravitation to reliably match observations by positing weaker and stronger gnomes based on the amount of material in the particular body (or perhaps just more gnomes can live in larger celestial bodies), then the ridiculousness of the gnomes is largely irrelevant.

I was referring to what RAZD said, which in retrospect probably wasn't particularly relevant to the OP: ... Because future observations are very likely to contradict the gnome theory? Reliable data about Earth's gravitation does not guarantee that our conclusions about that gravity will also turn out to be reliable. An example of an unreliable prediction of the gnome theory would be the possibility of sifting for gravity gnomes, to collect them for our own use. I didn't say it reduced the ridiculousness, I said that the ridiculousness was largely irrelevant to its reliability. A theory of invisible greedy gnomes that makes predictions exactly in line with our current understanding of gravitation will be exactly as reliable as that current theory. The point I was making is that the usefulness of scientific theories lies primarily in their reliable predictive power, not in the philosophical explanations behind them.

Ehh, give him a break. After all he is trying to prove the existence of God while providing valid reasoning and reliable sources.Somehow I think "a couple of days" might be a tad optimistic of a time frame.

That Earthly data combined with observations of several other celestial objects leads us to make the prediction that the force of gravity is proportional to the amount of mass in the object. These conclusions can, and have, been shown to be reliable when examining newly observed bodies.Thus the reliability of our conclusion about the link between mass and gravitation is proven. I'm sorry, but I am having a hard time understanding what you are getting at. Are you making some point about my needing to hold your hand through every conclusion?Humans sift a lot of soil for a variety of reasons. Nobody has ever sifted up a concentration of gravity gnomes, in contradiction of prediction of the gnome theory. Thats an example of an unreliable prediction of the gnome theory. Because I have shown an example of how the predictions of the gnome theory are unreliable, we can by extension conclude that the gnome theory itself is unreliable. This is because it leads to unreliable predictions.Have I covered that step to your satisfaction or should I go over it in more detail? This doesn't tie in directly to the OP's request. Instead it ties into your response to RAZD's response to the OP, which is why I replied to your response to RAZD's response to the OP, rather than to the OP. This is why I quoted your response to RAZD, because that is what I intended my reply to address.At no point did I suggest that scientific evidence cannot be demonstrated to be reliable. I also specifically pointed out that the reliability of scientific conclusions (distinct from evidence remember) is their primary benefit, and largely independent of their accuracy in other respects.

I'm not sure that logical consistency can be counted on, considering it has not been shown to be true of the supernatural. Considering our data set is so small (nil) we shouldn't jump to conclusions.