Seeking to make good arguments might be a better goal than
always thinking about the ends like whether homeopathy is true in the end.
This feels backwards to me, so I suspect I’m misunderstanding this point.
I’d say it’s better to test homeopathy to see if it’s true, and then try to work out why that’s the case. There doesn’t seem to be much point in spending time figuring out how something works unless you already believe it does work.
The question is not only does homeopathy work but do arguments A, B and C that conclude that homeopathy doesn’t work work.
You could argue that every argument against homeopathy that differs from the argument that meta studies showed that it doesn’t work is pointless.
If you however read an average skeptic, skeptics often make idealist arguments based on whether something violates the physical laws as the skeptic understands the physical laws.
Do you argue that any argument that isn’t based on whether a study fund that a process works is flawed?
This feels backwards to me, so I suspect I’m misunderstanding this point.
I’d say it’s better to test homeopathy to see if it’s true, and then try to work out why that’s the case. There doesn’t seem to be much point in spending time figuring out how something works unless you already believe it does work.
The question is not only does homeopathy work but do arguments A, B and C that conclude that homeopathy doesn’t work work.
You could argue that every argument against homeopathy that differs from the argument that meta studies showed that it doesn’t work is pointless. If you however read an average skeptic, skeptics often make idealist arguments based on whether something violates the physical laws as the skeptic understands the physical laws.
Do you argue that any argument that isn’t based on whether a study fund that a process works is flawed?