Your definition, as it stands, basically makes it impossible to show physical existence because any evidence would have to be observed through some sense to confirm physicality. Also, why would using senses to establish physicality be inherently biased or indicate circular reasoning? i mean if you can't establish physicality through the senses then you can't establish anything through the senses, which is quite a remarkable claim. Senses work well for many things when multiple people can confirm the result. It might be circular if you were relying on your own senses all the time but if you're relying on a thousand people who sense the same thing, then its not very likely that everyone is wrong.
With the last assertion, you could say similar thing about 'believers' - they can't all be wrong - thus existence of God is a given?
"My definition, as it stands" is I observe how things are set up for physicality, but not necessarily all we have to go on. We have consciousness, insight, intuition, reason, logic, contemplation, etc. to go on as well. I see those (or that) as a) superseding senses and b) giving way to questioning and/or accepting physical existence.
I am not saying, haven't said you can't establish physicality through the senses, but as noted, see that as circular reasoning. Akin to saying one can establish God's existence through the Bible, while reason / contemplation would suggest that to be circular. Consciousness utilizes the senses / physical self for observation of physical existence. I see this as ultimately confirming a faith in that understanding of self. Same consciousness can do similar, if not exact same, thing in a night dream, establishing self as physical, with physical senses to confirm observations of an entire physical world, with entities that are not 'me' (not my physical self) and other people who can confirm what is being seen is independent of 'me.'
Mathematics isn't scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is derived from experiments which confirm or deny a hypothesis--sometimes based on math.
This is point I felt like I made. Perhaps you made it better.
No scientific theory relies on mathematics alone. ALso what do you mean when you say the scientific method is not part of physical existence? The scientific method doesn't work without physical things: peer review, cause and effect, experiments, etc.
Scientific method stems from consciousness, and is not observable in physical existence. It's an idea, part of imagination.
Also science doesn't rely on faith. Science admits its assumptions could be wrong. However, the success of science so far shows that the assumptions its based on are reasonable. That isn't faith when you can admit it could be wrong, you admit it could change, and it makes predictions from numerous experiments that turn out to be true. That makes science radically different from religious faith. Calling this faith is very fishy.
Can science admit that it is basing its assumptions about 'reality' on an existence that has not (yet) been shown to objectively exist - aside from perception of self as physical entity? Does science admit it could be fundamentally 'wrong' based on this central, underlying point? Honestly, I would give credit to science to suggest it could admit to this, even while it generally does not, or while I never have seen that admitted to. I still think science can. Once the fundamental faith is accepted, I do think reason can follow, where correlations/associations can be rationally discerned. Though how much of that is entirely on the observer? The reality of consciousness?
Relying on reason and logic isn't faith. Also its not my fundamental faith. I accept the non zero probability of there being inherent problems with logic and reason.
You are missing what I stated. Before reason and logic are employed comes the fundamental faith. This is in reference to the Self, not what the self thinks after the fundamental faith is accepted. All that (thinking) may include reliance on reason and logic, and that isn't itself the fundamental faith of which I speak. But that faith is underlying all existence. Again, with night dream, this is more clear, while reason and logic are entirely possible within the dream scenario. Though admittedly, there's 'room' to have certain convictions about physical existence made loose, less entrenched than what this world holds, but even then reason and logic aren't dismissed. They are still at work, processing or filtering the entire experience (of the dream) for comprehension of what is occurring, and why, or how.
Not many thinking people or scientists have complete trust or confidence in anything. I don't have complete trust or confidence in anything. I assign probabilities, as do most scientists, to various facts. THe existence of gravity, for example, is something like 99.99...999 with 1 million nines. Basically its something extremely likely to be true. But nothing ever reaches 100% because for all we know we could be in the matrix. THe problem with your argument is that you think people have complete confidence and trust in something, which they don't.
I actually believe no one has 100% faith in physical existence, and that all persons, do have innate knowledge that while they appear in this world, they are not of it. I also think of faith in physical existence as a distortion of faith, fundamentally as it is distorting the reality of Self, and Existence. But whatever your assigned probability is to existence of gravity, you could possibly add another million nines after that to get to the probability that some have for existence of physical world as 'their reality.' Still wouldn't be 100%. Given the fact of physical death, thus far zero exceptions, I doubt it will ever be 100% conviction/faith.
