It never goes anywhere with them. They keep presenting useless skepticism until finally you admit that in theory you could be brain in a jar. Then they "win" and get to claim God.

I assume you are like me. I take the evidence and see where it goes. What they do is they throw away the evidence so they can get the result that they want.

These things break my theory

Me: my theory must be wrong.

Them: you can't really know anything.

I didn't say anything about it being the best method, and just that something helps my case doesn't make my logic circular. You could say that it'd be circular to say "the scientific method relies on the real world existing, and the real world existing relies on the scientific method", but that's exactly what I'm saying is not the case; in fact, my whole point is that you can't use the scientific method to prove that the real world exists exactly for that reason. I literally typed "not the other way around". The results of the measurements you make of the non-phenomenal world exist themselves in the non-phenomenal world so they can't be proof that that world exists. I don't know how to put it in simpler terms!