rationalskepticism.org

GrahamH wrote:

ughaibu wrote:
And if the conduct of science entails that the researcher must behave at some way at time three, then either that researcher can behave as entailed or [and] there is no science, is[n't] there?

There you go. Simple.

Your 'argument' demonstrates nothing except that you can construct arguments that are self contradictory and mistake them for valid logic.

Your chance has gone. I am not going to spend any more time attempting to explain an argument that you clearly either have no interest in understanding or are pretending not to understand. If you have a serious response, unlucky, you cried "wolf" too many times.