I didn't go to look up bad examples. I tried, honestly, to see what PhilSci was about, how it could help. Hence reading the Very Short Intro book. Stanford's Pl

I didn't go to look up bad examples. I tried, honestly, to see what PhilSci was about, how it could help. Hence reading the Very Short Intro book. Stanford's Plato is often held up on HN as this awesome site. And since I understand CompSci a bit, I figured PhilCompSci should be something I can understand (whereas I might not be equipped to judge other areas so well). In every case, I've not found any good arguments, just pontificating. The closest I've heard similar to what you're saying is stepping outside of Science-the-process to determine what things are true using Bayesian probability. For instance, Einstein stating that his theory was correct, even if the first test didn't agree. I thought this was pretty well accepted. Other than that, what kind of outside-science thought systems are we talking about? And more usefully, where is a short intro that doesn't come with spurious, dull, or absurd statements?