Question: The question is about the nature of scientific evidence. You both said, and I think most people here would agree with you, that we’re justified in holding a belief if there is evidence for it or there are logical argumentes we can find that support it. But it seems like this in itself is a belief, which would require some form of evidence. If so, I’m wondering what you think would count as evidence in favour of that and, if not, how do we justify choosing that heuristic without appealing to the same standard that we are trying to justify?
Dawkins: How do we justify, as it were, that science would give us the truth? It works. Planes fly, cares drive, computers compute.
Law: It’s an inductive argument.
Dawkins: If you base medicine on science, you cure people; if you base the design of planes on science, they fly; if you base the design of rockets on science, they reach the moon. It works … bitches. [1:10:30]