**The instigator has not provided us what his definition or meaning of the word "belief"**
A belief in the context of my argument is something that you hold to be true, but which is not necessarily true. The implication is that it is illogical to hold something to be true unless you actually know it is true.
**in epistemology, a belief is simply something that is held or accepted as true by a person[1]. In this sense, beliefs are a necessary component in any question for truth,**
The problem with belief is that you do not need to know something to think it is true, therefor you are opening yourself up to be incorrect if you have beliefs rather than open inquiry and proven facts, especially if those beliefs are based on faith (AKA nothing).
**In making a deduction about available facts, the soundness of any conclusion depends on the validity of our initial premises. Our premises are themselves deduced from more basic premises or are assumed.**
Incorrect. This is where the open inquiry and speculation part come in. You don't need to believe something to consider it, your ideas should consist of hypotheses, theory and fact rather than any form of assumption.
**If we discount any assumptions, then we can only have premises which have been deduced from other premises. This results in an infinite chain of logic argument without beginning,**
The scientific method works a lot better when you postulate your hypothesis and then search for evidence rather than diving into your hypothesis from the top of the empire state building and hope it catches your fall. There is no need for assuming, only inquiring.
**Some basic assumptions in science[2]:That cause and affect exists as all as natural phenomenon;**
Not only can you observe cause and effect in literally everything in the universe but it is logically impossible for everything that exists and happens to not be caused. If such where the case, then things can literally pop out of nothing, a unicorn could spontaneously essemble in your lap in a universe lacking cause and effect.
**That our observations of past events can give us insight into future events;**
Given that cause and effect is inevitably a physical necessity, it goes without saying that past events influence future events, and therefor are relevant in their prediction.
**The physical world is governed by laws which are consistent everywhere and throughout time;**
It's actually been proven that the laws of physics aren't consistent everywhere and throughout time. The known laws of physics break down in many cases such as with singularities and quantum entanglement.
**Without adopting any beliefs whatsoever, we lack the ability to make any reasonable predictions of the future, and the grand adventure of science is ended before it can begin.**
Entirely baseless and false. You do not need to believe in anything to form a hypothesis, you only need an idea and some information.
**Though irrelevant to the point at large, I will note that "delusions" are generally defined and identified by their abnormality.**
Firstly, it's not irrelevant, the average human is both naturally inclined and encouraged by society to think in terms of personal beliefs and opinions rather than objectivity and methodology. Secondly, concluding that delusional notions are defined by their abnormality is assanine. Delusional notions are defined by their relationship to objective reality and if you think the majority of humans can't be wrong about a lot of things then I don't know how to help you other than to refer you to the nearest psychiatric ward.
**While I do not object to this simplification of the scientific method, I will note that its role in history runs counter to instigator's argument. The modern scientific method was largely built upon the views and ideas of Karl Popper. While Popper eschewed the role of induction in science, he did not object to the use of beliefs in the pursuit of science. In fact, he embraced their use! Rather than eliminate beliefs (which he calls "conjectures") Popper provided a method by which we can choose among them.**
You are missing the point of science if you think beliefs are a necessary part of the scientific method. These "conjectures" are merely postulations, guesses maybe, but not necessarily beliefs. Also the scientific method was built gradually and still has room for improvement, Karl Popper was significant to it's formation but he did not lay it's foundation or complete the development of it's methodology.
**I will note that the instigator offers no support for this definition of "scientific thinker." (Indeed, it is presented as instigator's own opinion, which is ironic).**
There is no official definition for scientific thinker, the irony is entirely semantic. What I am referring to is someone who applies scientific standards to everything they allow themselves to accept as truth.
**Every person on Earth has held beliefs and opinions about reality (by any definition).**
True, but that doesn't make it the best way to think. I am thinking long term here, humans will not always be humans (provided we don't go extinct before we reach type one civilisation status) and we will learn to think in entirely different ways. The first step towards that point is to change our culture globally and change the way people form ideas to make it impossible for them to be indoctrinated or programmed in the way they currently are by society.
**We must then conclude that there are no "true" scientific thinkers,**
It's quite possible that this is the case. It is something that we must work towards through shifting the culture and changing the way successive generations are brought up.
**Given the purpose of such a definition as to classify something that exists in reality, we must discount this definition as flawed. Plenty of "scientific thinkers" throughout history have held beliefs or opinions about reality.**
I must discount this statement as an abuse of semantics. I have already stated what I mean when I say scientific thinker.
**Summation**
Pretty much everything you said was complete and utter bollocks, mate.
MODERN PROBLEMS REQUIRE MODERN SOLUTIONS
oldest updated debate. Let's bump it shall we?
Interesting topic. Tried to read it to the end but Pro your formatting makes it kinda hard to follow what you're saying. Drafters on the other hand is very easy to read. Maybe consider sub headings and dot points for the sake of the readers, cuz I stopped trying halfway through R2.