Scientific Knowledge

I don't have a wife.
Well - that was not a difficult question to answer.And if RAZD wants to make up positions that no-one else has put forward, as if they are some kind of 'gotcha', then I am left with no option but to point out that he is either making a meaningless point or he is mis-representing someone.Seriously, Xongsmith - only post when you are sober.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Ah - I see.
RAZD was referring to a statement made by another poster 70 posts previous.Perhaps if he had mentioned that I could have asked him what that has to do with whether untestability alone is a barrier to taking an atheistic stance towards a given proposition.As to "there are no gods": there is no way to prove something doesn't exist.
But it is possible to prove that something does exist.
And the longer that search for evidence remains unsuccessful: the more atheistic (6) your stance can be.
When evidence is found that conflicts with the existence of something: the more atheistic (6) your stance can be.
It is simply inductive reasoning. The more the evidence points you in a direction: the more likely that it is the correct direction.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

If there was, this would be you failing it:

Curiously, the answer is 'No' because a priori assumptions are not by definition untestable.
Assuming them to be true does not mean they are untested or untestable.

Yes.
I notice it does not say it is untested or untestable.
What do you think the word 'further' means in that context?{abe} Firstly, it is not unchecked. The 'Yes' is checked. (Use peek mode - the 'checked' flag is set.)
Secondly, it was an interactive question: I interacted with it.p.s.
I wish you didn't delete your own posts when they embarrass you.
It means I have to quote everything you post.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

You are moving the goal posts.
Do you agree that your previous post regarding a priori assumptions is wrong?
Do you still think that a priori assumptions are by definition untestable?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

So now you are shifting the burden of proof.
This is the second fallacy you have committed (the other one being goal-post moving).
As you are someone who constantly points out other people's logical fallacies: you will therefore understand why I feel that you are being completely dishonest.As I said to Chuckles:

quote:

---

a priori assumption
(ay pree or-ee) From Latin, an assumption that is knowable without further need to prove or experience it.

---

It does not say it is untested or untestable.
What do you think the word 'further' means in that context?Well, I will do your homework for you this time and then await your next deceitful response.
Here is an example of a testable a priori:
In economics it is a fundamental a priori assumption that consumers behave rationally.
This can be tested by providing consumers controlled choices and collating the results or by analysing purchasing patterns.Do you agree that your post regarding a priori assumptions is wrong?
Do you still think that a priori assumptions are, by definition, untestable?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.