You have no basis to call what I did a straw man when in actuality it is the argument held by mainstream science and philosophy of science.
No, it isn't an argument held by mainstream science. You already admitted it was a strawman.
I think I will skip over the majority of your strawmen and insults this time.
Saying "it causes space to curve" is not a mechanism. Its an effect.
Good thing I'm not just saying that.
Mass curving space is the mechanism behind what causes objects to fall and appear to be attracted to one another.
Yes, it is an effect itself, and could have a mechanism behind it.
But that applies for all mechanisms.
You can always try to go one step deeper.
If that is your metric for what is 'rational', then 'Gut-Feel' reasoning is 'rational.'
There is no "gut feel reasoning"
There is inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.
I justify it as irrational because of the definition of rationalism versus the definition of empiricism.
So no justification at all then.
Again, the definition you want to look at is rational, not rationalism.
You can show deductive reasoning is 'truth preserving', which should be a suitable threshold for any reasonable use.
Again, prove it.
So far all we have are your empty words asserting that it works, but no actual proof.
Please show that it is "truth preserving" without using deductive reasoning or any form of reasoning you reject as irrational.
It is far better, as it does not lead to infinite regress. It is circular reasoning, but it is not regressive.
No, it is exactly the same.
You can use inductive reasoning to show inductive reasoning works, just like you can use deductive reasoning to show that deductive reasoning works.
Both are equally circular, relying upon themselves to prove that they work.
If I followed what I preach
No you don't. If you did you wouldn't support being able to know anything at all.
Never the less, we can observe the photon.
Which isn't what I asked for at all.
Again, how are these photons generated?
This is the equivalent of mass bending space time.
If you are happy for photons to just be created without any mechanism for their formation you should be equally happy with mass just bending space time without any mechanism for doing so.
The ones I previously linked.
So not the ones you were claiming existed at all.
Not any that disprove or contradict gravity.
Ones that are entirely consistent with gravity and our limited knowledge of the mass distribution of our planet (or any planet).
So you were lying when you said they did contradict gravity.
They most certainly can for gravity anomalies.
How?
Just how do you think the average person can easily go and detect a gravitational anomaly?
But as you have just established that they are not the ones you were talking about before, and instead are ones which pose no problem for gravity, I guess that is entirely irrelevant.
I'll provide justification when you justify
i.e. you will happily just assert that deductive reasoning works with absolutely no backing to it, while dismissing other forms of reasoning unless they can be proven.
Thanks for yet again showing your double standard.