Arguments like "I know this because of past experiences I have had, I don't need to reason it any more" always make me cringe.

>>53887066
So the scientific method makes you cringe? Daily life must be difficult.

>>53887066
Not everyone is autistic enough to want to re-invent the wheel every time they're asked to "prove" something.

The meat of the joke is the phrasing itself, within the right context.

>>53887114
There's nothing scientific about "This is true because I think so". Silly mouthbreather.

>>53887152
No, but you should still be able to back your words up with more than feelings and opinions.

>>53887233
>No, but you should still be able to back your words up with more than feelings and opinions.
In a casual context backing yourself up with claims of prior experience is perfectly acceptable.

>>53887233
"This is true because I think so" is completely different from "This is true because I have seen identical situations in the past with the same result."

Go back to school.

>>53887114
yeah

lead-pipes and lobotomies were fucking great, right?

science cannot actually be explained logically

>>53887346
I don't understand your gibberish. Make sense or stop posting.

Inductive reasoning is where you draw conclusion from limited sources. Its how we operate in real life 90% of the time. Deductive reasoning is where conclusion is irrefutably covered logically by the evidence. Both are means to discover truth and both of them can lead to wrong conclusions.

File: p4esFgu.jpg (33 KB, 650x366) Image search: [Google]

33 KB, 650x366

>>53887346
>science cannot actually be explained logically
>science cannot explained logically
>science cannot logically