In a way, yes, but the key point of the scientific method is testing and validating hypotheses to confirm existing models or theories.
Everything can be questioned in a sensible way, but if you’re going against the grain of established mountains of evidence, then you have to work just as hard to provide counter evidence or proofs.
The burden on proof for fantastical claims is on the person or persons making it.
There is also the assumption of the central importance of ideas, which is a rather deranged perspective when you think about it.
Don’t get me wrong, ideas have high utility, for memory and language and such, but still.
An idea is just a little thing, and any association between it and the rest of reality is purely contrived.
well sure, epistemology says we can never be absolutely certain of almost anything. But the alternative to ideas is… what exactly?
We can still observe and discuss methods for making observations.
That’s just like, your idea man
Yeah but it isn’t the key central focus of the deal anymore then. It’s just a convenient accessory.
Yes, that’s why the skepticism and scientific method is needed
But the point of the scientific method is to get us high-quality ideas. How would that cure the derangement of an idea-centered perspective?.
Maybe if you removed the model-making part. Leave the primacy of observation and the utility of peer-review. Maybe.
In a way, yes, but the key point of the scientific method is testing and validating hypotheses to confirm existing models or theories.
Everything can be questioned in a sensible way, but if you’re going against the grain of established mountains of evidence, then you have to work just as hard to provide counter evidence or proofs.
The burden on proof for fantastical claims is on the person or persons making it.
Yes. Hypotheses. Ideas.