As by Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
In one understanding it is scientism, foundationalism and rationalism,
It is scientism in both senses:
- thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
- excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.
The latter is so, because it is declared as in fact fact, that what reality is and how to know about reality as only using science.
The problem is that the qoute is based on how somebody thinks as for what is valid for knowledge.
Now for foundationalism it is a form of foundationalism, since it claims what is the correct version of in effect knowledge.
As for rationalism it is a case of this, because it is based on that it makes sense that reality is indpendent of perception, but that it makes sense, is based on reasoning for the claims being valid.
In a broader sense it is not different from some forms of religion in that what matters is obejctive as either reality or God, is founditional as it is the correct way of understanding what is really real and in the end is about who what matters as making sense, is down to a given individual/group for what is correct, valid and true for all humans.
That is the same because the general claim is the same. There is one correct form of knowledge.
Now this is debate, so what do i want to debate?
Well, if I can in effect do something which is not in reality/not from God, how it is that it can be know that I can do that, if it is not in reality/from God.
Our perception of reality is a blend of reality and imagination, as inferred from science theory not yet at steady state and agreed upon by all. Science sees the real data of today with today's tools and then tries to explain this with theory. That theory is how the masses perceive reality via education. However, new and better tools appear tomorrow that see more data, and now the theory has to be revised. However, education may not keep up and standard theory may not change but can become dogma, so the layman is stuck in yesterday's perception of reality. The experts may have a closer view, but it may not reach the masses since the standard theory is still taught.
The better way to see this topic is similar to what you said; there is a final theoretical reality; God's universe, that someday science will see and explain with steady state theory, that will no longer change. Pure Science jobs will become obsolete. There will be plenty of applied science jobs. But in the mean time, we perceive that ideal reality through dirty glasses, that are not yet fully clean. Our imagination sort of tries to extrapolate through the dirt to get a composite effect.
As a good example, the life sciences depend too much on statistical methods, which places dynamic reality in a black box. This is like wearing dark sunglasses indoors. This still allow us to observed static things like DNA and catalog what we see, but the dynamics of this data is modeled with a black box in the dark. You will never get a rational theory of cause and effect, this way, only an empirical correlation. Obviously much work still needs to be done before this science see the pure light. The job growth in the life science areas shows they are going the wrong way since clarity should be simplifying and need only maintenance. That has to do with politics in science; inefficiency.
The reason this approach; in the dark, is used, is the approach is based on the organics of life, which are extremely diverse making it harder to connect all the variables. The black box allows the variable to average themself into correlations. One way to simplify is via the water. Water touches all the endless variety of organics and theoretically, all you have to worry about is one variable; water, in different states. This offers a way get out of the black box and closer to a rational view of the same reality.
A loose analogy is say you did voice analysis on all 50,000 people in a stadium. We look at the unique signals from each voice pattern and try to figure out how all these are unique yet they all seem so synchronized. This is where statistics can come in handy. On the hand, instead of looking at all the diversity of the voice profiles, you realize they are all speaking a common language and that the voice difference is not the primary variable. This is where we are. Water is the common language and the organics are voice profiles; water and oil effect. Below is a water and oil fractal pattern. That looks like a bunch of cells.