I really don't like this double-talk.
If the LoA is true, then it is true objectively-- that means that it can be tested and demonstrated scientifically. Because, after all, the LoA is a claim about how the universe works.
If the LoA "works for you," that doesn't mean it's true-- it means that
acting as if it is true gets you what you want.
Your failure to make this distinction is what people get all sniffy about, Ian. You can't go on about what a great thing the LoA is, and how true it is, and then when asked "Why? How do you know?" retreat into a little rabbit hole called "I'm no scientist, but it works for me."
You don't have to be a scientist in order to construct actual arguments for the truth or falsity of theories about how the world works. I'm not a biologist, but I can explain very explicitly why I think evolution is true (and have done so in this very forum ad nauseum), and it has nothing to do with my
wanting it to be true. When you use the "I'm not a scientist" excuse, it comes off as "I believe this without any good reason; I just want it to be true."
Which is why it's an ideological stance. You can tell that someone's stance is ideological when they care more about what it means than whether it's true, and whether it "works" rather than
how it works.
Damn, it's like LoA is a religion for Ian.
Exactly.