[gottebp]

More towards the latter portion of your writing. Science is a branch of philosophy after all. It has axioms such as: "The world is objective, orderly, and comprehensible." It assumes the existence of the laws of logic, and their immutability.

Take those away and the whole edifice collapses.

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/48844/axioms-...

[Dylan16807]

It doesn't really 'collapse'.

You just have to put "everywhere the universe acts consistently, which it has in 100% of tests," at the start of everything you say.

[gottebp]

To even do a "test" you are assuming the truth of the axioms already. There is really no escape from epistemology. Axioms are simply accepted on faith, and everything is built on top of them.

[Dylan16807]

I don't need to assume axioms to tell you if a measurement I remember taking is consistent with them.

[gottebp]

You are assuming the very logic applied at the time of measurement was, is, and remains true. What if the laws of logic change every few minutes?

Perhaps your are not aware of how low level we are talking. Epistemology relates to how we know what we know.

[Dylan16807]

> You are assuming the very logic applied at the time of measurement was, is, and remains true.

No, I'm not assuming that.

> Epistemology relates to how we know what we know.

That's why I added "I remember".

If I can't trust my memory at all, then it doesn't really matter what I do.

But I can put that as a disclaimer over everything if I really want to. I don't have to assume.

And I feel like you've gone way beyond the original scope at this point. If I don't feel like considering the "brain in a jar also the brain only started existing 2 seconds ago" theory right now, my decision to ignore it comes long before I even start worrying about science. If my decision is wrong, it's not a problem with science.