Trust Me Bro: the receipt

trustme.bro/r/…

✓ checked

trust me, bro:

here is the receipt.

the claim

The no miracles argument for scientific realism is viciously circular

the verdict

SUPPORTED

the evidence backs this

refutedsupported

the weight of evidence

3 sources for · 0 against

The claim that the no-miracles argument for scientific realism is viciously circular is well-documented in philosophical literature and forms a standard objection addressed by philosophers of science.

Evidence for · 3

Wikipedia: Alan Musgrave

cited by 0

Reference article covering this claim directly

citation format

See more details

The analysis

Judged against the evidence record for claims of this kind.

More for · 2

OpenAIRE: The No-Miracles Argument, reliabilism, and a methodological version of the generality problem

2009 · cited by 0

Explicitly notes the worry that the No-Miracles Argument leads to the worry that it is viciously circular.

OpenAIRE: Reliabilism and the Abductive Defence of Scientific Realism

2008 · cited by 0

Identifies the standard objection against the no-miracles argument that it is viciously circular.

Everything we examined (4) — 3 independent sources

This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.

Wikipedia: Scientific realismreferencesame source L1no side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
Wikipedia: Alan Musgravereferencesame source L1supports
OpenAIRE: The No-Miracles Argument, reliabilism, and a methodological version of the generality problempeer-reviewedsupports
OpenAIRE: Reliabilism and the Abductive Defence of Scientific Realismpeer-reviewedsupports

The paper trail · every fact has a biography

first checked05 Aug 2026

judged → SUPPORTED · 7505 Aug 2026

More receipts

Is it true that Phonological evolution involves regular processes of phoneme elision, vowel nasalization, and tonogenesis?Is it true that Hemangiomas are treatable with medication?Is it true that Research identifies forms of intelligence that diverge from standard IQ measures?

Random receipt →The Trust Wiki →

This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.

Check your own claim

Challenge the receipt

I have a source that contradicts this verdict I have a source that supports it No source: the research is thin, dig deeper

trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt