"Please test the laws of logic."
There are no "laws" of logic - there are simply rules. These rules amount to axioms. Hence logic is an arbitrary system we use for establishing the validity and truth value of a given formal argument. Please note that validity (whether or not the argument is constructed properly) and truth value (whether or not the argument is true) are two completely different things, and they are not related.
"Please test the laws of science."
You need to be very careful with this statement. What do you mean by a "scientific law?" The true laws of science are mathematical - that is, they simply describe the relationship between two variables that we have measured. Boyle's Law, for example, describes the mathematical relationship between the pressure and volume of a gas under fixed temperature. It can indeed be tested, and has been so many times with always the same result that it is considered a "law" - that is, it is always true. However, it would only take a single validated observation to the contrary to make us reject the law altogether. So the laws of science definitely can be tested. Every time we make a new observation we test the law. But after a certain (very large) number of tests, each additional test becomes trivial. Also, note that things like "natural selection" or the Theory of Evolution are not scientific laws. They are explanations.
"Please test the ability of a person to make rational choices."
This can indeed be tested, and is done so all the time by psychologists and others. Check any of the books by Michael Shermer, Robert Park, etc. We simply design experiments which demonstrate the basis upon which human beings, individualy or in groups make decisions.
How old was that post of mine? I thought we had moved on from that.
The laws of logic, laws of science and our ability to make rational decision CANNOT be tested scientifically.
Since to do so would equate to circular reasoning.
You assume the laws of science in order to scientifically test the laws of science of which science itself is based.
You assume the rules, (laws), of logic in your scientific test of the rules, (laws) of logic of which a logical conclusion can be made
You assume that you do indeed have the capability to make rational decisions before embarking on any scientific endeavour, (let alone testing that you are capable of making such decisions in the first place)
Further I'd like you to also engage the context of where I said these things. Sasquatch was claiming for "evidence" of my logical conclusion that stems from the argument for God from Biochemistry.
" Its a logical conclusion.... You cannot scientifically test logic"-post# 20
"EDIT: also asking to test a logical conclusion would lead to an infinte regress as you would then need to ask to test the conclusion of the tests you did on the original conclusion, and then test the conclusion that was made about the test of the original conclusion.... This is what I'd like to call the Dawkins fallacy, (from the who designed the designer argument)."