Originally Posted by
Acleron
What is irritating is people criticising skeptics for being skeptical of the claims of philosophy although no evidence for its value is ever produced.
Also, people who state flatly "no evidence for <some claim> has ever been produced" when it is obvious that evidence HAS been produced, but the flat staters were not convinced by it.
Originally Posted by
Acleron
There are two reasons we assume our logic is correct and that evidence is repeatable. One is that we have never found another two assumptions that could possibly work and the second is that the assumptions appear to work.
If this is philosophy, it is a very minor and trivial part of science.
The claim that evidence has value in deducing the truth of a proposition is a philosophical one, and is a fundamental, rather than "a very minor and trivial," part of science.