>You are literally trying to pull a "But you can't be CERTAIN!" on science, dude.
Is it wrong? I don't know if you purposely try to diminish what I said by dumbing it down into a single capitalized sentence but, still, explain me how it isn't the case, then.
>the scientific method is the answer to the skeptical problem
How? Is it proven to be more efficient? Does it provide safer results?
>no, because I can express the accuracy itself. Even without full accuracy, I can make the assertion that when I run 1000 experiments with a 95% accuracy, I can reasonably expect about 950 positive results. The more often I apply it, the closer it will be to p*n*100. That is more than "belief"
This is a belief. “95%” is an arbitrary figure which has no concrete bases. You could ran 1,000 more experiments and find out the accuracy has fallen to 80%. You think the higher you repeat it, the more accurate this number becomes. It doesn't rely on logic. You can't prove this claim. Accuracy, reliability are both assumed to be existent for practical purposes yet remain unproven. The means that any comparison between two figures is also a produce of beliefs, thus a belief itself. We all think a medical treatment with a positive record of success is better than praying. It's common sense. It's backed up with experiments. However, it still not logical.
>there is, when I can demonstrate that the effects of feng shui are indistinguishable to no method at all
Actually you can't. There are probably some studies which suggest it has no discernible value but there's no way you can dismiss it as a whole.
>you keep attempting to apply the absolute truth-statement norm on a method that assumes degrees of truth, BECAUSE of skepticism
Are you sure you read what I wrote? I did, not on the method itself, but the assumption there's something like a degree of truth.
>again, that isn't what is happening. Prayer has no significant probability for effect, because it is indistinguishable form random remission, meaning there is no effect at all
Please read it again, I'm sure you can spot the hole in your sentence.
>unlike penicillin, which has an effect
No, it “may” have an effect, which is held as more accurate because of empirical data. It may be less efficient than another medicine. It may be less efficient than praying. It may have no effect at all.
>the assumption isn't that it has a randomized effect with set probability, but that the non-1 p values is simply due to unknown variables
It's all arbitrary. How do you trim the confounding factors? What is a confounding factor? How do you know it hasn't been taken in account? The experiments yield a bunch of figures to assess the likelihood a result is to be right and rid of unrelated variables but it's still an experiment which could be completely wrong. The ideas it has a degree of truth and that degree is somehow a proven, reliable parameter have no rational basis.