| > That iterative improvement and hill-climbing is an effective process for improving results. Not essential to science; in fact, there’d a major viewpoint within metascience that explicitly rejects this as popular mythology of how science works in practice, holding that models change by revolution more than evolution. > That replication of experiments and convergence is a truth-generating enterprise. Not part of science, in the same way that your use of “truth” later is not. > That truth can be expressed numerically No. While scientism may make essential connections between science and truth, science itself only depends on useful predictive models being expressable, not about truth being expressable, numerically or otherwise, or even being a coherent, meaningful concept. > That there are some values that are "known good" That's not only not essential to the scientific process, but contrary to something that is: that all results are contingent. |