I will not be responding to strawman[s].Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 9:36 am Also - what is it that makes one KFC more credible and reliable than another anyway? VA has never explained this.
I think the ranking nonsense is a distraction from the main issue, which is: why do the natural sciences provide the most credible and reliable knowledge of reality?
The silly KFC theory doesn't address this question, because it's main claim is that there's no such thing as reality ('whatever is real' etc) outside KFCs.
So the only way to assess the relative credibility and reliability of KFCs - for example, why astronomy is more credible and reliable than astrology - is from within another KFC - and so on, in an endless circle. (Among others, IWP has been pointing this out for ages.)
Supposedly, there's no reality outside KFCs against which to assess them. So VA has no basis for his belief that the natural sciences are 'better' than all the others. And I think this leads to the contradiction at the heart of all the fashionable versions of antirealism that VA peddles.
I did not use the abbreviation you used above.
Where is your intellectual integrity?