God as defined using science.

[TagliatelliMonster]

Tell me what useful looks like, how you see it?

I already did that. Usefull: that which enables you to do things, create things; those things that are helpfull one way or the other to achieve a desired outcome.

I'ld say the theory of relativity, for example, is pretty usefull in that it enables us / is helpfull for creating things like GPS satelites.

You know external sensory observation as a part of science. Further list its measurements according to the scientific measurement standards and what instruments are used to measure it. Then explain what theories within science cover it.

See, you can't. Useful is not objective as per evidence. It is subjective, i.e. it has no objective referent. You do know what a referent is, right?
You are like some religious people, who don't understand that their claims to objective evidence and proof are subjective.
For you it is not God. It is, that you don't understand, that just because you say, something has evidence, doesn't mean, that it has evidence. That is not unique to religious people. Non religious people can also do that and you are one of them.
God has no objective referent and useful has no objective referent.

Being obtuse again.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I already did that. Usefull: that which enables you to do things, create things; those things that are helpfull one way or the other to achieve a desired outcome.

View attachment 41974

I'ld say the theory of relativity, for example, is pretty usefull in that it enables us / is helpfull for creating things like GPS satelites.
...

It is pretty useful for us in that enables us as it is of benefit to us(subjective) and is helpful for us(subjective).
It is the to/for us, that is the give away in combination with useful/benefit/helpful. That is what makes it subjective.

So again tell me how you see useful, not feel that it is useful, helpful, a benefit. Tell me what it looks like. Describe it like you would a thing, e.g a chair. Measure it like a chair, hold it, touch it. Now like it was an apple. What does it smell like? Taste like? Now like a bell; what does it sound like?

I can't help that you don't understand that useful is not a concrete thing or e.g. physical force. And it is subjective, because it has no physical measurements or external sensory properties. I really can't help you, that you don't understand that this is a requirement for evidence.
I am serious. You don't seem to understand that evidence in science requires observation through the external senses(primarily sight) or measurement with an instrument. That is science 101.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, maybe. But for what I know and I am prepared to change my POW, nobody that solved that one. I.e. with reason and logic to explain the world as such. That has been known for over 2000 years now and nobody have been able to do it. It is called Agrippa's trilemma and the last serious attempt was Descartes and he failed. Well, come to think of it - logical positivism also tried and that also failed. So that is 2000 years of trying and nobody have succeeded.

The point about reasoned enquiry in general and scientific method in particular is that if it makes sense and it works. On that basis we have not a trilemma but a tetralemma, the fourth, and winning, prong marked "pragmatic".

They are justified by the fact that they work. If they're shown not to work, then we can deal with the problem when it arises. Meanwhile, as this conversation, and the history of humankind, show, there's no such problem.

So the trilemma is simply irrelevant in practice. The achievements of science, and reasoned enquiry generally, are there to see, and are ongoing. IT WORKS.

As related to biology, I doubt that there is a purpose in evolution and we are the end result in that we can understand the world with reason and logic. That doesn't seem to be how reason and logic work. They are a result of an evolutionary niche, that allows human to live using reason and logic. But to live in a biological sense is not the same as understanding all of the world with reason and logic.

There is a reason I am a skeptic. I have done this for over 20+ years now and I have always checked against what was already known. And no, there is a limit to reason and logic.

As the third assumption says, reason is a valid tool ─ and reason is only a tool, It has no purposes of its own. It solves your problems, answers your questions, not its own.

But you are not alone. There is a lot of people, who believe like you.
Regards and love

Or as my father's family used to say when the whisky was on the table, "Here's tae us. There's nane like us!"

 

[blü 2]

Reason needs justification.

Yes, reason is a tool. It has no purposes of its own.

I'm referring to humans, dogs, plants, animals, dirt, chemistry, perhaps space and time, matter, and energy are all intelligent systems. Not all intelligence is living in my view.

Hmm. I'd have said "intelligence" is part of understanding, maybe most of it; some animals and birds can understand things. Trees, and the plants generally, have evolved responses to stimuli that are useful to plant survival but don't involve understanding as such, however ingenious they look from the outside.

As for the properties of energy, time, space and physics generally, the fact that we can (often) map them onto mathematical models keeps us hopeful they're orderly, but the map is not the territory, and I don't think it could be said that order must imply purpose and intelligence.

The non living intelligent systems in nature would have their own intrinsic alien code and alien language, alien intelligence, and not so obvious causes and effects

Good luck with that! If you're right, there's a Nobel Prize for you in there somewhere.

The meaning of life is to find worth and value in living it. Not all worth and value is enjoyable. But ultimately the meaning of life is to enjoy it, and reduce and eliminate needless suffering.

I agree, noting however that humans are very strong on their own survival and convenience, 'and not so strong on what's good for the earth or the universe.

 

[gnostic]

It is simple, once you realize what it means that science is methodological naturalism and based on a set of assumptions for which there are no proof or evidence.

• Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order.
• We can know nature.
• All phenomena have natural causes.
• Nothing is self evident.
• Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience.
• Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

That is the definition of God as used by science. None of these assumptions can be proven because they run into Agrippa's Trilemma. In short as for the history of science as related to philosophy once it was realized that there is no Truth in practice, you don't have to hunt for Truth. You go with what appears to work and forget about the problems of epistemological solipsism, Descartes' evil demon and that rationalism doesn't work; and simply state what appears to work.

Now for those of you,, who want to have your cake and eat it too, you can't. Science is not about Truth and there is no proof possible for these assumptions. They are the basis for knowledge, but not knowledge, truth, proof or evidence themselves. That is what, it means, that science is methodological naturalism.
They also explain, how knowledge is cognitive or a model and thus the difference between the model and the landscape in the fundamental sense. In other words for the practical use of science, you explain your model of knowledge and what you find when you use that model, Truth or no Truth.

That is the dirty secret of science. It doesn't prove or otherwise shown that reality is natural. It assumes it. Now add the limitations in practice of science:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
And that includes that you can't with strong justification show, that religion is wrong, because science doesn't deal in that kind of wrong, you get a certain kind of non-religious person, who argues beyond science and ends up doing morality/useful/philosophy.

So for the set of non-religious people just as I have to "defend" the religious belief that is okay to eat babies, non-religious people don't have as a double standard to defend anything. Science is self-evidently True with Reason, Logic, Proof and what not and we don't go near that one, because science is scared. You can't point out that it in practice can't solve morality or useful and that it is limited in practice. Oh, yes and that the Big Bang is not a fact. It is one possible set of theoretical models.

Some people in practice can't differentiate between the philosophy of science and their belief that it is a fact, that reality is natural, physical and what not.
Now for those of you , who get this and know this. Fine! But it was never about you. It is about those who confuses methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism or overdo the usefulness of science.

I think I agree with @Altfish here:

You've constructed an excellent straw man here

That OP is all nothing more than straw man.

And then there is this, subject line...

God as defined using science

...which you never got around “defining”. And you definitely and certainly didn’t “USE” science whatsoever “TO DEFINE” God.

All I see in the OP, is you doing a long anti-science tirade, trying to compare science and religion as if they are the same things, without ever demonstrating that you have define God using science.

All I see you doing is a whole lot of sophism, philosophizing what science is or isn’t or should be, but really...you don’t have a clue how science work.

And your cluelessness become very apparent, when you keep demanding “PROOF”!

For the second, proof please. Just as if you were to prove God. And yes, I am serious. Proof please.

No. I am not. I want proof that it is objective in the strong sense and not just a first person experience. I don't want your beliefs, I want proof. I want to you to admit that in the end your beliefs are nothing but that and that they only appear to work. Not that it is fact. If you claim it as fact, I want proof.

Science is a belief system, that appears to work. If you got more than that, deliver the proof.

You keep wanting PROOF. But you don’t understand that science don’t use or rely on proof, they use and rely on evidence, like @HonestJoe said, science is...:

...based on evidence from observation.

Which lead me to think you really don’t know what PROOF is.

You think PROOF and EVIDENCE are the same things...they are not...not according to scientists and mathematicians.

If you want PROOF of, say proof of gravity, for instances, you might present Newton’s law of universal gravitation:

...or you want proof of gravitation as given by Einstein in one of his field equations, as given in General Relativity:

These are what proofs look like, mathematical models or representations of gravitation in Newtonian Mechanics and Einstein’s equation in General Relativity.

When mathematicians or physicists talk about “proving”, it only related to the equations, like solving the equations, or simplifying complex equation, or unifying multiple equations into a single equation, or doing the exact opposite of breaking down a large equation into multiple smaller equations, etc.

The word “proving” or “disproving” are not what you are thinking. Scientists don’t prove a hypothesis or theory; no, they test a hypothesis or theory using observations, evidence, or experiments.

Proofs in science, are equations or formulas. Proofs are not evidence.

Evidence are observations that can be -

• detected or observed), eg viewing through microscope or telescope, using multimeter to detect electricity in conductor or circuitry, recording experiments on video, etc),
• quantified (eg provide numbers as data used for statistical analysis, establishing success or failure of tests),
• measured (eg measuring masses of some objects, velocity or speed of moving objects, electric current or voltage, etc),
• tested (eg performing experiments, comparing evidence, verifying or refuting, etc).

All are of the above, are related to observations, and provide useful objective data, that can be tested to determine if a model (eg hypothesis or theory) is science or not.

Proofs, like those equations I mentioned, are not evidence. Proofs are used as part of the explanations or predictions formulated in the models. Like the explanations and predictions in a model, mathematical equations must also be tested, to determine if the equations are correct or incorrect. Just as explanations are subjected to scrutiny, so are the equations/proofs, and these validation can only happen if you have evidence that support them.

Science relied on “empirical evidence”; there is no such thing as “empirical proof”.

So if you don’t want to sound like a science-illiterate, then stop demanding for “proofs”.

Edit:

Sorry, the images of the equations are not displaying except in edit post mode.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Evidence are observations that can be -

• detected or observed), eg viewing through microscope or telescope, using multimeter to detect electricity in conductor or circuitry, recording experiments on video, etc),
• quantified (eg provide numbers as data used for statistical analysis, establishing success or failure of tests),
• measured (eg measuring masses of some objects, velocity or speed of moving objects, electric current or voltage, etc),
• tested (eg performing experiments, comparing evidence, verifying or refuting, etc).

All are of the above, are related to observations, and provide useful objective data, that can be tested to determine if a model (eg hypothesis or theory) is science or not.

Proofs, like those equations I mentioned, are not evidence. Proofs are used as part of the explanations or predictions formulated in the models. Like the explanations and predictions in a model, mathematical equations must also be tested, to determine if the equations are correct or incorrect. Just as explanations are subjected to scrutiny, so are the equations/proofs, and these validation can only happen if you have evidence that support them.

Science relied on “empirical evidence”; there is no such thing as “empirical proof”.

So if you don’t want to sound like a science-illiterate, then stop demanding for “proofs”.

Edit:

Sorry, the images of the equations are not displaying except in edit post mode.

But that reality is natural and all of the rest assumptions are that, assumptions and without proof.

Evidence works as a cognitive model based on that reality is natural and all the rest. That is what is without proof.

Now justify evidence as the correct form of knowledge and you switch from evidence to proof/justification of evidence.

Now here is the joke: There is no evidence that there are useful objective data. That requires proof, because you can't give evidence for something being useful, because useful is not empirical.
That is where we always end. That science is useful, is not science and without evidence.
So: "All are of the above, are related to observations, and provide useful objective data, that can be tested to determine if a model (eg hypothesis or theory) is science or not." is itself not science, because you can't determine if something is useful using science.
You are using a non-evidence rule to declare evidence useful.

 

[gnostic]

But that reality is natural and all of the rest assumptions are that, assumptions and without proof.

Evidence works as a cognitive model based on that reality is natural and all the rest. That is what is without proof.

Now justify evidence as the correct form of knowledge and you switch from evidence to proof/justification of evidence.

Now here is the joke: There is no evidence that there are useful objective data. That requires proof, because you can't give evidence for something being useful, because useful is not empirical.
That is where we always end. That science is useful, is not science and without evidence.
So: "All are of the above, are related to observations, and provide useful objective data, that can be tested to determine if a model (eg hypothesis or theory) is science or not." is itself not science, because you can't determine if something is useful using science.
You are using a non-evidence rule to declare evidence useful.

You got everything backward, and it would seem you are no better than the average creationists, making up words and playing word games, so that left becomes right, right becomes left, up becomes down, down becomes up.

That the sort of ignorance, dishonesty and folly that creationists are known for.

If you are saying that proofs - not evidence - are the essential requirements, then all theoretical models, like String Theory, Multiverse model, etc, become accepted by default, WITHOUT TESTING and WITHOUT EVIDENCE & OBSERVATIONS.

In essence, you would turn every theoretical proof-based models as true, regardless of any tests and evidence.

Without testings, there is no modern science, modern technology, modern medicine, etc.

Proofs are only maths, in the forms of equations or formulas, and they must be tested like everything else in science.

You don’t understand science at all, you don’t even understand the basics.

The question is why you would bring up subject when you are utterly clueless?

 

[gnostic]

I agree, noting however that humans are very strong on their own survival and convenience, 'and not so strong on what's good for the earth or the universe.

We do (meaning our actions) have the effects on the Earth...

...but nothing we do on Earth would really effect the Solar System, or our galaxy, let alone the Universe.

We are simply too insignificant to have impact on the universe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You got everything backward, and it would seem you are no better than the average creationists, making up words and playing word games, so that left becomes right, right becomes left, up becomes down, down becomes up.

That the sort of ignorance, dishonesty and folly that creationists are known for.

If you are saying that proofs - not evidence - are the essential requirements, then all theoretical models, like String Theory, Multiverse model, etc, become accepted by default, WITHOUT TESTING and WITHOUT EVIDENCE & OBSERVATIONS.

In essence, you would turn every theoretical proof-based models as true, regardless of any tests and evidence.

Without testings, there is no modern science, modern technology, modern medicine, etc.

Proofs are only maths, in the forms of equations or formulas, and they must be tested like everything else in science.

You don’t understand science at all, you don’t even understand the basics.

The question is why you would bring up subject when you are utterly clueless?

Well, I am skeptic and I don't believe in any kind of proof. Whether it is in case of as a rational justification for science or religion. Science in practice is a belief system, which apparently works for certain kinds of useful. Religion works for other kinds of useful.

So you believe in science apparently and not religion. I believe in both but I have proof of neither. Nor do you apparently.
You just believe like the rest of us because it apparently appears to work.

So if you want to use proof as with justification based on reason and logic for useful and science, you can try. But you can't use evidence in favor of being useful or for the philosophy of science, because both are subjective and evidence doesn't apply.
BTW Proof is also used in logic and philosophy and connects to rational justification, because rational requires logic and thus is a form of proof and justification is the correct reasoning. That is philosophy in the end.
It is telling that you believe proof only belongs to math and forgot logic and justification.

So I suppose you have no rational justification for useful and science and you admit that it is just a belief system, which apparently appears to work? In other words, that you are believer just like me?

 

[blü 2]

We do (meaning our actions) have the effects on the Earth...

...but nothing we do on Earth would really effect the Solar System, or our galaxy, let alone the Universe.

We are simply too insignificant to have impact on the universe.

I think if you check out the earth's animals, you'll find that evolution has given us all a basic kit of very strong instincts which include, up near the top of the list, personal survival and sexual activity appropriate for breeding.

In our own terms we're the smartest species there is ─ and on the present state of our knowledge, that means we're the smartest known species in the universe. The universe as such has no opinion, but as long as we're around, we'll be into surviving long enough to breed, and as long as we succeed at surviving and breeding, we'll be around.

Oh, and somewhere down the list is philosophy.

 

[gnostic]

Well, I am skeptic and I don't believe in any kind of proof. Whether it is in case of as a rational justification for science or religion. Science in practice is a belief system, which apparently works for certain kinds of useful. Religion works for other kinds of useful.

So you believe in science apparently and not religion. I believe in both but I have proof of neither. Nor do you apparently.
You just believe like the rest of us because it apparently appears to work.

So if you want to use proof as with justification based on reason and logic for useful and science, you can try. But you can't use evidence in favor of being useful or for the philosophy of science, because both are subjective and evidence doesn't apply.
BTW Proof is also used in logic and philosophy and connects to rational justification, because rational requires logic and thus is a form of proof and justification is the correct reasoning. That is philosophy in the end.
It is telling that you believe proof only belongs to math and forgot logic and justification.

So I suppose you have no rational justification for useful and science and you admit that it is just a belief system, which apparently appears to work? In other words, that you are believer just like me?

Actually you don’t understand science whatsoever.

You keep believing that science required proof, that having proof determine it is science.

It doesn’t.

Science doesn’t rely on proof, except as a mathematical model, like a equation or formula. Maths are useful tools, but they are man-made logic or logical method to providing possible solutions.

But proof (eg equations) is only valid or true, ONLY if there are evidence to support the equations. Without verifiable evidence, proof isn’t valid to science, and proof would be consider false.

No formulas or equations are considered true by default. They are all must be tested like the proposed explanations and proposed predictions in a hypothesis.

And the only way to test explanations, predictions and proofs in any model, are through verifiable observations and verifiable evidence.

It is these evidence and observations that objectively determine explanations/predictions/equations in a model are true or false.

You are still confusing proofs and evidence, just like every uneducated creationists that I come across in forums, including here.

In science and mathematics, proof and evidence are not synonymous terms, they have completely different definitions, and 9 out of 10 creationists don’t understand this.

I don’t know what religion you follow, but you are repeating the same mistakes creationists make.

The problem is, that they confuse these two terms, thinking in the contexts of court of laws, because lawyers and judges use them synonymously and interchangeably. But scientists and mathematicians recognize they are not the same words and don’t have the same meaning.

Until you understand the difference between proof and evidence, and until you understand evidence take precedence over mathematical proofs, you will be repeating the same mistakes as creationists do, thereby compounding your own ignorance.

 

[gnostic]

I think if you check out the earth's animals, you'll find that evolution has given us all a basic kit of very strong instincts which include, up near the top of the list, personal survival and sexual activity appropriate for breeding.

In our own terms we're the smartest species there is ─ and on the present state of our knowledge, that means we're the smartest known species in the universe. The universe as such has no opinion, but as long as we're around, we'll be into surviving long enough to breed, and as long as we succeed at surviving and breeding, we'll be around.

Oh, and somewhere down the list is philosophy.

I understand that, but the reality is, that the universe isn’t effected by anything that happened on Earth.

If all life (including bacteria) were to die tomorrow (this is hypothetical scenario of course), it will have no impact on the universe.

What happened on Earth, stayed on Earth.

We have sent to 2 space probes out of our Solar System, Voyager 1 and Voyager 2, launched since 1977, but they will both lose all powers in 5 to 7 years from now. So both will drift in space with no more communication and nasa won’t have any control over either.

They are most distant objects that man ever created, and it don’t have any impacts in the Milky Way or the universe, because these are insignificant.

 

[blü 2]

I understand that, but the reality is, that the universe isn’t effected by anything that happened on Earth.

If all life (including bacteria) were to die tomorrow (this is hypothetical scenario of course), it will have no impact on the universe.

Well, yes, the universe doesn't have an opinion to be impacted. It doesn't have any emotions, not even indifference.

We have sent to 2 space probes out of our Solar System, Voyager 1 and Voyager 2, launched since 1977, but they will both lose all powers in 5 to 7 years from now. So both will drift in space with no more communication and nasa won’t have any control over either.

They are most distant objects that man ever created, and it don’t have any impacts in the Milky Way or the universe, because these are insignificant.

No, the universe has no sensibility, hence is incapable of judgments like 'insignificance'. If the Voyagers go rogue and wipe out all the stars, the universe will remain incapable of and unaffected by opinion or emotion regarding those ─ or any other ─ events.

 

[blü 2]

I can't help that you don't understand that useful is not a concrete thing or e.g. physical force. And it is subjective, because it has no physical measurements or external sensory properties. I really can't help you, that you don't understand that this is a requirement for evidence.

"Useful" is a judgment made by a human. As you say, it doesn't have objective existence, only conceptual existence ─ that I find it handy.

On the other hand, if it's a pencil or a spade or a torch or my phone or car that I find useful, they all have objective existence. They're there whether I'm looking at them, or thinking about them, or not.

As for evidence, the observed motion (concept) of the moon (real) allows us to predict where it (real) will be (real) at a particular future time (the clock registration will be real) as it moves / changes position relative to us (real) along its orbit (conceptual).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Science doesn’t rely on proof, except as a mathematical model, like a equation or formula. Maths are useful tools, but they are man-made logic or logical method to providing possible solutions.

But proof (eg equations) is only valid or true, ONLY if there are evidence to support the equations. Without verifiable evidence, proof isn’t valid to science, and proof would be consider false.

...

You don't understand logic as valid and sound.

Here is an example:
Premise 1: All birds can fly.
Premise 2: Penguins are birds.
Conclusions: Penguins can fly.

This deduction is valid, but not sound/true.
Validity in proofs are cognitive as happening in the brain where as evidence is not. But evidence is not the only form of truth.
So for:
Premise 1: A is B
Premise 2: B is C
Conclusion: A is C
The conclusion is true as valid and with proof as cognitively correct, but neither true nor false as per evidence.

Here is your problem.
You are conflating different kinds of valid and truth. The bold part is not correct, because you conflate valid and true/sound. They are not the same.

So here is science as per valid and true, if you rely want to play that game as per Popper.
"The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper, is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested and proven false. For example, the hypothesis that "all swans are white," can be falsified by observing a black swan."
https://www.simplypsychology.org/Karl-Popper.html#:~:text=The Falsification Principle, proposed by,by observing a black swan.

So true and false in science are determined by observation.
Now we switch to the everyday world we are all part of and look at different versions of true.

Here are 3 versions of true and I will as per objective/subjective and what kind of truth they are.
#1: There is a PC monitor in front of me. True as per evidence and objective as independent of all thought*.
#2. 2+2=4 for certain assumptions in mathematics. True as per logic and valid and objective as not a subjective evaluation, but not independent of all thought.
#3: I love my wife. True as a feeling in me and subjective, because it is a subjective evaluation and dependent on conditions in my brain.

But there is a version of objective, which I have alluded to with the * and it is this: Having reality independent of the mind. That one is philosophy and not science. You know this when you unpack it in regards to knowledge/truth/evidence**.
Now I will bet the following. You believe if you are sighted and not blind and reading this sentence on a viewing device, that the viewing device as itself* has reality independent of you.
**That is not testable with science, because science requires experience of something as per observation and experience requires a mind.
Itself* means that you hold in regards to metaphysics and ontology that it exists "as it appears" in regards to its physical and natural properties. In other words, you believe in some version of philosophical physicalism/materialism/naturalism.

But that is something for which, there is no evidence, proof, valid example, truth or what not. What reality is independent of your experience of it as in itself is unknowable and if you hold a positive belief about that, you are a believer.
We can go through the epistemology and the idea of "the thing in itself", but it is philosophy of science and philosophy as such; and not science as such.

So what are your position on this:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Useful" is a judgment made by a human. As you say, it doesn't have objective existence, only conceptual existence ─ that I find it handy.

On the other hand, if it's a pencil or a spade or a torch or my phone or car that I find useful, they all have objective existence. They're there whether I'm looking at them, or thinking about them, or not.

As for evidence, the observed motion (concept) of the moon (real) allows us to predict where it (real) will be (real) at a particular future time (the clock registration will be real) as it moves / changes position relative to us (real) along its orbit (conceptual).

That is philosophy and requires the beliefs in objective reality, real, existence and the thing in itself.
Now that is without proof and the everyday basis of the idea of evidence. You can believe in all that. I believe differently.

 

[blü 2]

That is philosophy and requires the beliefs in objective reality, real, existence and the thing in itself.
Now that is without proof and the everyday basis of the idea of evidence. You can believe in all that. I believe differently.

Every time you go to walk down the stairs and there's a step there, is a completely satisfactory demonstration that objective reality ─ a world external to the self ─ exists.

If you REALLY thought otherwise, you wouldn't bother posting here.

 

[paarsurrey]

God as defined using science.

It is no business of Science to define G-d. Right, please?

Regards
____________
"Our God"
by Mirza Bashir Ahmad
https://www.alislam.org/book/our-god/

 

[cladking]

• Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order.
• We can know nature.
• All phenomena have natural causes.
• Nothing is self evident.
• Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience.
• Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

I'm in general agreement with your post but...

Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order.

Nature is known to not be "orderly". I believe there's no such thing as "laws of nature".

We can know nature.

We will never know nature even if we continue learning forever.

All phenomena have natural causes.

Probably true but we'll need to include "God" as a possible cause.

Nothing is self evident.

Again this is mostly true. Someone can misinterpret just about anything at all.

Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience.

Science does not take this as axiomatic. I believe there are two kids of knowledge that might be called "book learning" and "experience" or "visceral knowledge". "Book Learning" isn't really true at all but is usually an accurate assessment of the state of the art. To the degree consensus opinion is correct book learning is true. Of course this can lead to true knowledge which is experiential knowledge. But even experiential knowledge is only true within context.

Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

I believe this is necessarily true except where knowledge is false or where it is being taken out of context. We can get nowhere if no one has any knowledge at all.




Your point is very valid; that science has no meaning at all outside metaphysics and few people, even scientists, ever try to grapple with such fundamental concepts as definitions and premises. To most individuals "Science" is another religion that requires faith and belief.

 

[halbhh]

Nature is known to not be "orderly". I believe there's no such thing as "laws of nature".

Do you agree that gravity works very consistently? (It's unclear what you are meaning to convey, or whether you might or might not agree that gravity works very consistently.)

What if a new physics theory was formulated that predicted an entirely new thing no one expected or had seen?

Would that seem meaningful?

Back in 1915-1919 time frame, Einstein's radical new theory of General Relativity predicted that gravity would bend starlight in a way no one had seen, and didn't expect.

It was not simply explaining what had been seen. Something radically different instead: predicting what no one expected or guessed or had seen.

Here's a popular science level article on that:
How the 1919 Solar Eclipse Made Einstein the World's Most Famous Scientist

Here's a more advanced article on the same:
Einstein, Eddington and the 1919 eclipse