"The only reason "science" would claim that your assertion is wrong is if your explanation doesn't agree with reality."
Your statement is a circular reference to the problem of induction. You arbitrarily claim to be able to make accurate assertions of reality while at the same time agreeing that the essence of reality is unknowable.
This reply of yours is full of circular reasoning. Stop using the word good without making your case for righteousness. You can't substitute it with practical or useful either, both infer benefit at the personal degree.
Just because an expectation proved to be useful once, remember that the past does not predict the future.
Your statement is a circular reference to the problem of induction. You arbitrarily claim to be able to make accurate assertions of reality while at the same time agreeing that the essence of reality is unknowable.
This reply of yours is full of circular reasoning. Stop using the word good without making your case for righteousness. You can't substitute it with practical or useful either, both infer benefit at the personal degree.
Just because an expectation proved to be useful once, remember that the past does not predict the future.
"Belief in the Causal Nexus is superstition"