Interesting, but not quite satisfactory, answer. This is a good thread, and it seems worth a serious answeer. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 762124
Are you sure that "scientifically test" the scientific method makes sense? It is a phylosofical principle and its only possible test is "if it works".
About the "assumptions independent from experience", you quote that text (author?) that seems to refer more to the way many perceive science as a kind of faith - which includes a lot of scientists, but far, very far from all of them.
A true, open minded scientist doesn't assume that reality is "absolutely" objective and consistent (not written in the text but implied, otherwise the phrase doesn't make sense), but that it is "relatively" so in a limited slice of time and space; such a person accepts the possibility of evolution and changes.
The same applies to "perceive the reality accurately", that in reality is only a process of improving approximations, quite conscious of the possibilities of errors.
Not very shaky, I would say, A (decreasing) little, yes, but with the full knowledge that it is so.
After those remarks, you still think that "Today's science does not test its core assumptions .. "? that seems a partisan judgement, more on the plane of chemtrails or zero-point folklore.
I appreciate the quotes in "alternate universe", that could be only of the mind, you never explicitly state that is is physical; acceptintG the game, when did you "arrive in this reality". An exact answer (YEAR) would be highly appreciated.
Thanks to you
I suppose the first test of the scientific method would be to test to see whether the assumptions about it are true.
Can we accurately perceive reality, for example? Science knows that we cannot, yet it goes about its business as though we can.
"Does it work?" is another kind of paradox. Anything can work if you make it.
You could say that the world is flat then build up evidence to support it. I also heard that Captain Mavis' ship disappeared (so, therefore, it must have falled off the Earth and our theory is sound).
I am not mocking science. I do respect its usefulness. But what can be understood by science is that the mind plays cognitive tricks. We can find or make up supporting evidence for anything if we wanted (because we tend to ignore things that do not fit with our beliefs).
Time marches on, and there will be new methods that appropriately suit the understanding of the time.
I may not have been referring to "true, open-minded scientists" but the scientific method itself which, although having proved itself very useful, is becoming more out of tune.
Regarding the other, are there not scientific "facts"? It would seem that the process of improving approximations is forgotten about if the clock ticks long enough.
"Today's science does not test its core assumptions .. "? is something I need to think about more. It could be that I am mistaken, as there is all manner of science being performed.
Some of what we talk about is based more on the nomenclature and that I tend to group things together (or not be able to verbalize some things) for ease of conversation.
The "alternate universe" is as physical as this world is. I wouldn't call it another universe, however. There is but one.
It's a difficult question to answer (when did you arrive in this reality) as 'bits and pieces' of us arrive and leave countless realities all the time.
Let me answer the question in a different way. I first became thirsty or hungry in this world in the year 2001.