[Dimensio]

ID is suggesting that Empiricism is NOT the *only* method of knowing

So how can an explanation that can never be falsified -- that is, there's no observation that would demonstrate that the explanation is off-base -- ever be useful? How can you have a meaningful explanation of events without a valid hypothetical construct to which you can refer as an example of what would be the case if the explanation were not true?

How can you truly "know" something if there's no way to "know" if that something is false?

[MacDorcha]

"How can you truly "know" something if there's no way to "know" if that something is false?"

Such is the problem facing Science. If something CAN be false in science, it is taken as "scientific"

If it is SHOWN as false, it is dismissed or adjusted.

There is no focal point that can be "true" unless it can be "false" and upon being false, it is no longer true. An effective naturalistic response to the world, but conflicting. Notions are only good if they are possibly NOT? Daoism much?

Socrates posited that EVERYBODY knows "the Truth." The only task is to ask the correct questions. Any answer will lead to the next step in logic, and thus eventually to the "trail head" of truth.