Since he wrote enough content I can respond.
7 big presuppositions of science that science itself can’t validate:
1. The senses are reliable
2. The mind is rational
3. The universe is rational
4. The uniformity of nature to justify induction
5. The laws of logic
6 The existence of numbers
7. The existence of truth
1. The purpose of science is to compensate for the imprecision of, limits of, and unreliabiilty of sense, perception, and memory. It does not depend on the reliabiity of senses, perception, and memory, but counts on their unreliability.
Judgement: No, science does not claim senses are reliable – just the opposite.
2. The purpose of science is also to compensate for the limits of reason.
a) Reason consists of the spectrum of auto-association, prediction, daydreaming, thinking(wayfinding), reasoning (sets), calculating(actions), and computing(quantities).
b) Reason requires tests of coherence across consistency of identity(category), consistency(logic), possibility(construction), correspondence (observables), rational choice, reciprocity (morality by reciprocal rational choice), within stated limits fully accounted within those limits – this constitues the spectrum of possibilities man can falsify by tests of consistency.
c) Logic consists of tests consistency between states (comparisons). Man can test the consistency of anything that reducible to the limits of sense-perception, consistency, prediction, and observation. Neurons do nothing other than test for consistency by successful prediction. The brain predicts. Networks in the brain predict. These networks compete for attention. Attention is siezed by networks that win predecting how to avoid a risk or obtain an reward. This process continues endlessly with continuous recursive competition for our attention.
d) Commensurability consists in relative (marginal) indifference in sense perception of individual humans, but differences in bias (sex, class), experience (memories) and wants.
e) Language creates a system of measurement within human limits of commensurability. Speech consists of streams of continuous recursive disambiguation sufficient to produce meaning, where meaning consists of sufficiently unambiguous (identity) of a model of experience that both parties can agree on the consistency of that identity(set of conditions, circumstances). Language enables humans to evolve from daydreaming and thinking (what say, dogs can do – limited cause and effect) to reasoning(competing sets of ideas), calculating (transforming perceivable inputs into outputs), and computing (using measurements that themselves are outside of perception).
f) Numbers, arithmetic, and mathematics are just the most simple language man has developed: Numbers are names of positions, operators names of actions, equality a test of consistency. This language contains only one noun (a number), one operator (addition/subtraction) and one test of agreement (equality/inequality/Less/More) And it is both referent and scale independent. This means that deception is almost impossible because the referent (numbers,ordinal names, positional names) are next to impossible to use for deception by conflation, inflation, substitution, or obscurantism simply because as having only one referent, one operator, and one agreement, tests of consistency are easily duplicated. In other words ‘math is the dumbest language possible with the least opportunity for error bias and deceit’.
f) Unfortunately humans justify (make excuses) because humans are selfish and subject to ignorance, error, anthropomorphism, bias, wishful thinking, loading, framing, obscuring, fictioning, fictionalizing(sophistry-idealism, magic-pseudoscience, supernaturalism-occultism), decieving, denying, projecting, outraging, ridiculing, shaming, moralizing, psychologizing, gossiping rallying social-construction, sedition, and treason.
g) Rationality consists in making rational (reasonable) choices within the limits of, and not independent of, one’s ability, knowledge, skill, and experience.
h) The universe demonstrates soft determinism or ‘regularity’ at the quantum, particle, atomic, molecular, chemical, biological, reproductive, behavioral, cooperative, environmental, and evolutionary scales. This is because the universe consists of one condition(pressure that can only be alleviated by expansion into space or contraction into mass) and one law (contraction into mass is achieved through combination and recombination). we refer to each level of combination and recombination a ‘discipline’. And there is an observable set of masses and charges and subsequent combinations – a logic of continuous recursive disambiguation of entropy(energy) into negative-entropy(mass). These processes are invariant at temperature and pressure.
(a) the purpose of science is also to compensate for pervasive human amorality and immorality due to an individual or group’s failure of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fiction, fictionalism, deceit, and undermining.
(b) The reason the greeks appear to have invented reason, empiricism, natural philosophy, and rational philosophy is rather simple: it evolved out of aristocratic law. Aristocratic law developed because of the european aristocratic prohibition on authority. The prohibition on authority required the jury. The jury in turn required a law: a uniform system of measurement for the resolution of disputes. Ergo, reason, empiricism, science, and geometry(math) evolved out of the prohibition on authority in the conquering aristocracy, as an extension of the law. As such what we call science is just court testimony under the rules of evidence of the court, applied to information instead of physical property.
Judgment a) “The laws of logic [are not scientific]” False. Quite the opposite. The laws of logic are not justificationary they’re an empirical categorization of the many means by which we can test consistency across categories (hierarchy) of human sense perception especially when sense perception is falsified by language, reason, recordkeeping, calculation, computation, that reduce complex episodic memory to repeatable evidence.
Judgment b) “The universe is rational” is false. It’s an example sophistry and non-logical. The universe merely exists. Whether we can describe it logically and rationally is dependent upon us, not the universe. The question is only whether the universe demonstrates soft determinism (regularity). And if, bcause of that regularity we can discover the means of describing regularity. The result of 2500 years of effort in empirical testimony, is that we can find nothing in the universe no matter how hard we look that cannot be described with categories, rules, and tests of consistency (regularity we call logic).
Judgment c) Instead, man is capable of rational choice within the limits of his ability, knowledge, skill, and experience. That does not mean he will reason correctly. As such we require a means of assisting man in reasoning. Language made reason and negotiation possible. Writing added expansion of memory. Numerical Computation added expansion of sense perception. Logic added precision and error detection. Money added economic calculation and computation reducing costs of trade. Tradition, Norm, and Law created a means of calculating action without provoking retaliation which in an era of defense by family members resulted in retaliation cycles (feuds), which hurt the whole community and especially, the interests of the state who required peace, productivity, and trade for legitimacy, and legitimacy for justifying taxes (vs tribute).
Judgment d) “The existence of numbers [is unscientific]”. This is simply false. Numbers are names of positions in an order. Every name refers to the ratio between the index (the number one) and itself. We scale numbers using a grammar of positional naming. We create statements using this vocabulary of noun, verb, agreement. Numbers exist like all names exist, whether names of nouns(adjectives), verbs(adverbs), or agreements (agree/true, disagree/false etc.)
Judgment e) The list doesn’t posit the question of human amorality, where humans only act within the limits of morality and justify all immorality that they can get away with – including magical thinking – and therefore doesn’t explain the purpose of science as solving the enduring human problem of defense from falsehood, deciet, fraud, undermining, and sedition. In this sense science does not seek to discover truth so much as eliminate ignorance, error, bias, deceit, fraud, undermining, and sedition, from which truth is incrementally discovered as a consequence. (This fact begs the question of whether those who argue against science by stating other otherwise are trying to lie or commit fraud – not discover truths.)
3. All justification consists of explanation (excuses). Justification arises out of. norms and blame avoidance, not out of science (due diligence, by measurement, observation, tests of consistency, resulting in evidence) and testimony, under adversarial competition before a jury( market ): falsification. All science is falsificationary: survival from testing (theory) and application (surviving theory). Not onlly is science falsificationary, but all logic is falsificationary. And all testimony is falsificationary. So whether by evidence, logic, or testimony, logic and science are falsificationary. So is the natural common law of cooperation: falsificationary. This says only what is false. What is not false yet testifiable, might be true. At some point there is no competing theory that is more testifiable and unfalsified and parsimonious, at which point we have discovered truth within the limits of testifiability at that scale.
Judgement: “The uniformity of nature to justify induction” is false. Science does not justify. It accumulates an increasing set of falsifications that have increasingly exposed the laws of the universe at all scales of the universe, despite the limits of human sense, perception, and thinking, and the tendency of humans to self interest by justification as a means of deception, by relying on ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fiction, fictionalism, denial, projection, ad hominem undermining sedition and treason.
3. First science consists of the discipline of producing testimony to that which is testifiable, and creating a market for the falsification (Survival) of testimony via competition from superior testimony.
4. All truth claims are performative and liable: meaning if you claim something is true, you’re testifying that something is true, and warrantying that you aren’t stating and spread a falsehood, that is detrimental or harmful to others.
5. As such One cannot claim true or truthful that he cannot testify to, and he cannot testify to that which is untestifiable, and so cannot claim truth that which is not testifiable.
6. As such science successfully progresses incermentaly toward the the most parsimonious (simple) truth by trial and error, by the continuous recursive production of testifiable testimony, and it’s survival from falsification by application in the market for testifiable explanations.
Ergo: science seeks and produces testimony that survives the jury of existence.
7. Decidability consists of testimony sufficient to meed the demand for infallibility in the context in question.
8. Truth consists of a spectrum of testimonly sufficient for satisfying the demand for decidability in the context in question.
9. The existential universe consists of one rule of continuous recursive disambiguation of disorder (entropy) into order (negative entropy, mass), we call a stable relation (persistence).
10. Science progresses incrementally to the discovery of the rules of continous recursive disambitgation that increase the precision of our thinking, reasoning, calculating, and computing just like language, writing, mathematics, the sciences have done until now.
11. Language progresses incrementally to the discovery of a single most parsimonious paradigm, marginally indifferent from those states(names), and operations and agreements at each scale of available stable relations (disciplines).
12. Humans differe in ability, knowledge, skill and experience (largely intelligence and education), discipline (largely concentiousness), and differ in sex bias (empathizing vs systematizing) and class bias (less competent vs more competent) and culture (group evolutionary strategy, metaphysics to enforce it, traditions, norms values to enforce that strategy while cooperating together) – stage of development.
13. Humans requre simple empathizing analogy in childhood (myths), simple explanation youth (history, literature), the ability to reason in young adulthood (philosophy), and the ability to judge in full adulthood (science, economics, law). Given that we all are different in ability and circumstance, humans will always require ‘theology’,’philosoph’, ‘science, economics, and law’. Theology and mythology are not true they convey truths when we differ in instincts and temperament. Philosophy does not produce truth it assists us in making choices because we differ in preferences. Science produces truth in matters of dispute. We will always need the gracful increase in precision from advice from wisdom, philosophy to choose, and science, economics, and law to decide regardless of our differences in ability or preference: truth.
The existence of truth
The idea that science is the ONLY field interested in truth and in which beliefs can be rationally assessed is self-refuting. It’s not a statement OF science but rather a philosophical statement ABOUT science. You can’t use science to justify science.
- Faith refers to supernatural authoriarianism – specifically that one cannot testify to and therefore is not claiming due diligence.
- Belief refers to philosophical justificationism – one that cannot testify to but can at least claim minimum due diligence.
- Science refers to due diligence in the the production of testimony. Juries, markets, applications etc refer to the mens of falsifying testimony.
These are empirical statements. they are not justifications. They are not opinions. They are not theological or philosophical statements, they are unambiguous categories of paradigms with increasing limits on premises. The only means of arguing against these categories will result in identification of motive for deception or denial.
- Testifiability is obtained thru falsification not justification.
- Langauge, names, logic, grammar, and agreement,scale as infinitely as do numbers.
- There are at least the above eight dimensions that we can test for identity, coherence, consistency and testifiability with human faculties.
We can therefore speak in terms of;
- Dishonesty – failure of due diligencde aginst bias, and deceit.
- Honesty – absence of deceit, by due diligence against deceit
- Truthfulness – Testifying to only what you can testify to given partial knowledge and information and due diligence against presumption, error, bias, and deceit. * This is the best humans can do *
- Ideal Truth – That most parsimonoius description we might state if we had perfect knowledge and information.
- Analytic Truth – That statements using symbols are consistent and coherent.
- Tautological Truth = Statements that vary by words not meaning.
We have no evidence that a most parsimonious truth doesn’t exist.
So far we know that the most parsimonoius truth is simple: evolutionary computation of stable relations (persistence) by continuous recursive disambiguation of disorder (entropy) into negative entropy(matter).
Language follws the same rules as the rest of existence, which is why we can decribe all existence, and therefore we can within marginal differences, free of error, discover, and speak the truth.
Where truth provides decidability in matters of conflict, dispute, disagreement.
Science can discover means of decidability so that we can use Truth to determine whether something is testifiable or not, false or not, moral and ethical or not.
But truth cannot determine preference.
And truth may requires more knowledge than many are capable of.
So we will always require mythology, history, philosopy, and the sciences.
And we will always require a hierarchy of competency from myth to history to philosophy to the sciences, so that we may escalate from advice, to choice, to decidability.