Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

Science Doesn’t Need Axioms—That’s Why It Works

That's a religious belief. A false one at that.

In your case "works" is a weasel word. Why does something which "work" need to iteratively self-correct? Doesn't that mean it doesn't work?

Skepdick, the fact that science self-corrects isn’t a flaw—it’s the reason it works. Unlike religion, which clings to falsehoods for centuries, science refines itself to get closer to the truth. Your claim that iterative improvement means it "doesn't work" is like saying a car that gets regular maintenance is broken. No, it’s functioning exactly as designed.

If you’re looking for something that doesn’t work, try religion—it never self-corrects, no matter how wrong it is. That’s the real "weasel word" factory.

[BigMike]

"Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?"

I find the topic title a bit strange, we can only know that something is impossible if we can prove a negative with absolute certainty. How do we do that?

Maybe when you were born, God put you into this Matrix-like simulation of this universe, in which the rational thing to do is to follow what science says. And he told his followers what's actually going on, but didn't tell you. Because God gets a kick out of that or something.

Your next move—the “Newton didn’t study the other side of the universe” gambit—is just embarrassing. Are you genuinely arguing that the consistency of physical laws across the observable universe is somehow invalid because we haven’t directly measured everything? Newsflash: the predictive success of physical laws across countless experiments and technologies is a stronger validation than your philosophical armchair musings. If the laws of physics weren’t consistent, you wouldn’t be typing on a computer powered by those same principles.

Maybe the laws of physics aren't consistent outside the observable universe, some scientists nowadays argue that there is some evidence that laws of physics aren't even consistent within the observable universe.

It's not that "if the laws of physics weren’t consistent, you wouldn’t be typing", it's that "if the laws of physics weren’t consistent or consistent enough, in our corner of the universe, you wouldn't be typing".

“Maybe God Put You in a Matrix”? Seriously?

Atla, this argument isn’t just ridiculous—it’s a masterclass in how to lose credibility in a single post. Let’s break this down step by step, because clearly, you need help navigating the basics of logic and evidence.

First, your assertion that “we can only know something is impossible if we can prove a negative with absolute certainty” is a textbook example of missing the point. Science doesn’t operate on “absolute certainty.” It operates on evidence, falsifiability, and probabilities. When something repeatedly fails every test thrown at it—like claims of miracles, gods, or metaphysical tinkering—we don’t “prove” it impossible; we dismiss it as irrelevant nonsense because it has no supporting evidence. Your insistence on “absolute certainty” is a smokescreen for ignoring reality in favor of baseless speculation.

Now let’s tackle your chef’s kiss of absurdity: “Maybe God put you in a Matrix-like simulation.” Right, because when faced with mountains of evidence supporting the consistency of physical laws, your brilliant counter is, “But what if God is trolling us?” If your defense of religion relies on invoking an all-powerful prankster who set up a fake reality for kicks, you’ve already lost. Science works precisely because it doesn’t entertain these childish “what if” scenarios without evidence. It focuses on what we can observe and test, not on indulging every whimsical fantasy about divine trolling.

Then there’s this: “Maybe the laws of physics aren’t consistent outside the observable universe.” Let me help you out here: maybe is not evidence. You don’t get to just hand-wave and speculate without proof. Science builds on what we can observe, test, and predict. If you think there’s evidence that the laws of physics aren’t consistent, great! Show it. Until then, this is nothing more than philosophical hot air. You don’t get to undermine centuries of scientific progress with a lazy “what if.”

And let’s not forget the clincher: “If the laws of physics weren’t consistent or consistent enough in our corner of the universe, you wouldn’t be typing.” Exactly! And yet, here we are, typing and reading on computers powered by principles of electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, and other consistent physical laws. You want to speculate that the laws might be inconsistent elsewhere? Fine, but until you provide a shred of evidence, it’s about as useful as arguing that invisible unicorns are hiding in your attic.

What you’re doing here is classic intellectual dodging—clinging to vague “maybes” and hypothetical inconsistencies because you can’t refute the real point: that science works. It delivers results. Religion, on the other hand, delivers excuses, evasions, and fairy tales about gods who “might” be pulling the strings. If your best argument is “but what if God is messing with us,” you’ve already conceded that you have no evidence and no real argument.

So here’s the deal, Atla. If you want to live in a fantasy world where gods create Matrix simulations to troll humanity, be my guest. But don’t pretend that your whimsical speculation is remotely comparable to the predictive power, consistency, and results of science. Religion thrives on these mental gymnastics because it has no evidence to stand on. Science doesn’t need such games—it’s built on reality, and it works.

Let’s drop the philosophical whataboutism and face facts: the observable universe operates on principles we can test and understand. If that’s too much reality for you, feel free to retreat into your Matrix daydreams. The rest of us will stick with science, where the real progress happens.

[godelian]

The claim that science’s epistemology is a “Platonic abstraction” is as confused as it is wrong.

Let's check with ChatGPT:

ChatGPT: Is epistemology a Platonic abstraction?

Yes, epistemology can be considered a Platonic abstraction in the sense that it deals with ideal, non-empirical concepts (such as knowledge, justification, and truth) that reflect idealized structures of thought and reality. While contemporary epistemology may not adopt Plato's metaphysical claims about the existence of a separate realm of Forms, the abstract nature of epistemological inquiry, focused on universal truths and concepts, is quite in line with Platonic abstraction.

According to ChatGPT, my claim is not confused and certainly not wrong.

[BigMike]

The claim that science’s epistemology is a “Platonic abstraction” is as confused as it is wrong.

Let's check with ChatGPT:

ChatGPT: Is epistemology a Platonic abstraction?

Yes, epistemology can be considered a Platonic abstraction in the sense that it deals with ideal, non-empirical concepts (such as knowledge, justification, and truth) that reflect idealized structures of thought and reality. While contemporary epistemology may not adopt Plato's metaphysical claims about the existence of a separate realm of Forms, the abstract nature of epistemological inquiry, focused on universal truths and concepts, is quite in line with Platonic abstraction.

According to ChatGPT, my claim is not confused and certainly not wrong.

Godelian, your attempt to validate your argument by quoting ChatGPT is a chef's kiss of intellectual laziness. Let me help you out: epistemology is not “Platonic” in the sense you want it to be. Sure, it deals with abstract concepts—just like logic, mathematics, and even the idea of "God." But unlike religion’s baseless assertions, epistemology underpins the scientific method, which ties these abstractions to reality through evidence and testing.

Quoting a chatbot doesn’t make your argument bulletproof—it just underscores your inability to engage critically. ChatGPT parrots inputs; science refines knowledge. That’s why science delivers while your Platonic daydreaming produces... well, this. If you want to argue like a philosopher, at least bring something more substantial than a chatbot quote to the table.

Otherwise, you’re just proving the point that religion and philosophy without science are intellectual dead ends.

[godelian]

The claim that science’s epistemology is a “Platonic abstraction” is as confused as it is wrong.

Let's check with ChatGPT:

ChatGPT: Is epistemology a Platonic abstraction?

Yes, epistemology can be considered a Platonic abstraction in the sense that it deals with ideal, non-empirical concepts (such as knowledge, justification, and truth) that reflect idealized structures of thought and reality. While contemporary epistemology may not adopt Plato's metaphysical claims about the existence of a separate realm of Forms, the abstract nature of epistemological inquiry, focused on universal truths and concepts, is quite in line with Platonic abstraction.

According to ChatGPT, my claim is not confused and certainly not wrong.

Godelian, your attempt to validate your argument by quoting ChatGPT is a chef's kiss of intellectual laziness. Let me help you out: epistemology is not “Platonic” in the sense you want it to be. Sure, it deals with abstract concepts—just like logic, mathematics, and even the idea of "God." But unlike religion’s baseless assertions, epistemology underpins the scientific method, which ties these abstractions to reality through evidence and testing.

Quoting a chatbot doesn’t make your argument bulletproof—it just underscores your inability to engage critically. ChatGPT parrots inputs; science refines knowledge. That’s why science delivers while your Platonic daydreaming produces... well, this. If you want to argue like a philosopher, at least bring something more substantial than a chatbot quote to the table.

Otherwise, you’re just proving the point that religion and philosophy without science are intellectual dead ends.

Well, who is going to be the impartial and objective referee on the matter? You? Me? Why not let ChatGPT decide the matter? What is your alternative?

[Atla]

“Maybe God Put You in a Matrix”? Seriously?

Atla, this argument isn’t just ridiculous—it’s a masterclass in how to lose credibility in a single post. Let’s break this down step by step, because clearly, you need help navigating the basics of logic and evidence.

First, your assertion that “we can only know something is impossible if we can prove a negative with absolute certainty” is a textbook example of missing the point. Science doesn’t operate on “absolute certainty.” It operates on evidence, falsifiability, and probabilities. When something repeatedly fails every test thrown at it—like claims of miracles, gods, or metaphysical tinkering—we don’t “prove” it impossible; we dismiss it as irrelevant nonsense because it has no supporting evidence. Your insistence on “absolute certainty” is a smokescreen for ignoring reality in favor of baseless speculation.

Now let’s tackle your chef’s kiss of absurdity: “Maybe God put you in a Matrix-like simulation.” Right, because when faced with mountains of evidence supporting the consistency of physical laws, your brilliant counter is, “But what if God is trolling us?” If your defense of religion relies on invoking an all-powerful prankster who set up a fake reality for kicks, you’ve already lost. Science works precisely because it doesn’t entertain these childish “what if” scenarios without evidence. It focuses on what we can observe and test, not on indulging every whimsical fantasy about divine trolling.

Let’s break this down step by step, because clearly, you need help navigating the basics of logic and evidence.

1. Science doesn’t operate on “absolute certainty.” It operates on evidence, falsifiability, and probabilities.
2. Therefore science can't tell what is impossible and what isn't.

See, it wasn't hard.

"Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?"

Then there’s this: “Maybe the laws of physics aren’t consistent outside the observable universe.” Let me help you out here: maybe is not evidence. You don’t get to just hand-wave and speculate without proof. Science builds on what we can observe, test, and predict. If you think there’s evidence that the laws of physics aren’t consistent, great! Show it. Until then, this is nothing more than philosophical hot air. You don’t get to undermine centuries of scientific progress with a lazy “what if.”

And let’s not forget the clincher: “If the laws of physics weren’t consistent or consistent enough in our corner of the universe, you wouldn’t be typing.” Exactly! And yet, here we are, typing and reading on computers powered by principles of electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, and other consistent physical laws. You want to speculate that the laws might be inconsistent elsewhere? Fine, but until you provide a shred of evidence, it’s about as useful as arguing that invisible unicorns are hiding in your attic.

What you’re doing here is classic intellectual dodging—clinging to vague “maybes” and hypothetical inconsistencies because you can’t refute the real point: that science works. It delivers results. Religion, on the other hand, delivers excuses, evasions, and fairy tales about gods who “might” be pulling the strings. If your best argument is “but what if God is messing with us,” you’ve already conceded that you have no evidence and no real argument.

So here’s the deal, Atla. If you want to live in a fantasy world where gods create Matrix simulations to troll humanity, be my guest. But don’t pretend that your whimsical speculation is remotely comparable to the predictive power, consistency, and results of science. Religion thrives on these mental gymnastics because it has no evidence to stand on. Science doesn’t need such games—it’s built on reality, and it works.

Let’s drop the philosophical whataboutism and face facts: the observable universe operates on principles we can test and understand. If that’s too much reality for you, feel free to retreat into your Matrix daydreams. The rest of us will stick with science, where the real progress happens.

Wow are you one lost maniac. Quote me saying that my "whimsical speculation is remotely comparable to the predictive power, consistency, and results of science". I said the opposite, that you seem to speculate too much, you present the known laws of physics as more axiomatic than we can know them to be, which is again somewhat faith-based.

I said: “If the laws of physics weren’t consistent or consistent enough in our corner of the universe, you wouldn’t be typing.” You said exactly, and then disagreed with it again.

(It's beside the point, but as for a "shred" of evidence, which may or may not be correct, for example:
https://www.science.org/content/article ... s-changing
https://news.ufl.edu/2023/06/big-bang-physics-laws/)

[BigMike]

Let's check with ChatGPT:



According to ChatGPT, my claim is not confused and certainly not wrong.

Godelian, your attempt to validate your argument by quoting ChatGPT is a chef's kiss of intellectual laziness. Let me help you out: epistemology is not “Platonic” in the sense you want it to be. Sure, it deals with abstract concepts—just like logic, mathematics, and even the idea of "God." But unlike religion’s baseless assertions, epistemology underpins the scientific method, which ties these abstractions to reality through evidence and testing.

Quoting a chatbot doesn’t make your argument bulletproof—it just underscores your inability to engage critically. ChatGPT parrots inputs; science refines knowledge. That’s why science delivers while your Platonic daydreaming produces... well, this. If you want to argue like a philosopher, at least bring something more substantial than a chatbot quote to the table.

Otherwise, you’re just proving the point that religion and philosophy without science are intellectual dead ends.

Well, who is going to be the impartial and objective referee on the matter? You? Me? Why not let ChatGPT decide the matter? What is your alternative?

Godelian, appealing to ChatGPT as an "impartial referee" is both hilarious and pathetic. ChatGPT doesn’t “decide” anything—it synthesizes inputs based on probability. It’s a tool, not a philosopher, and certainly not the arbiter of metaphysical debates. Quoting it like scripture only highlights your intellectual bankruptcy.

If your argument relies on outsourcing critical thinking to a chatbot, then congratulations—you’ve already lost. Science doesn’t need a referee. It tests reality, delivers results, and refines itself. Religion and Platonic abstraction? Just endless circles of navel-gazing with no tangible outcomes.

Pro tip: if you want to argue about epistemology, try using your own brain instead of hiding behind a chatbot. Or don’t—it’s deterministic anyway.

[godelian]

Pro tip: if you want to argue about epistemology, try using your own brain instead of hiding behind a chatbot. Or don’t—it’s deterministic anyway.

I was indeed arguing about epistemology when I wrote that it is a Platonic abstraction, to which you replied that my view would be wrong and confused, while chatGPT wrote that it was perfectly fine, to which you essentially answered that chatGPT would also be wrong and confused

The original question remains, of course. Who else can we get to weigh in on the matter?

[BigMike]

"Faith-Based Science"? Try Again, Atla

Atla, your attempts to sound profound are collapsing under the weight of your contradictions and misunderstandings. Let’s clear this up.

First, your assertion that presenting the known laws of physics as “axiomatic” is faith-based is laughable. Science doesn’t demand faith—it demands evidence. The laws of physics aren’t declared sacred; they’re continuously tested, refined, and revised as necessary. Unlike religious dogma, they’re not untouchable truths; they’re working models that stand until proven otherwise. Faith is clinging to something without evidence. Science is the opposite—grounded in observable, replicable facts.

You then accuse me of over-speculating while simultaneously indulging in your own “maybe the laws of physics aren’t consistent” fantasy. Here’s the difference: I’m sticking to what’s evidenced. If you want to argue that the laws might vary, you’ll need more than vague articles suggesting possible anomalies. Show repeatable, robust data proving inconsistencies. Otherwise, you’re just waving your hands and shouting “what if,” which contributes nothing.

And let’s address your links. Yes, scientists explore possibilities. That’s the point of science—to ask questions and test limits. But until those anomalies become solid evidence of something groundbreaking, they remain hypotheses, not contradictions of existing laws. You confuse exploratory research with proof of inconsistency. They’re not the same.

So here’s the real issue: your argument amounts to taking a swing at science for not being omniscient, as if a method that acknowledges its limits is somehow flawed. But that humility is why science works. Unlike religion, it’s not afraid to say, “We don’t know—yet.” Your nitpicking only highlights how little religion or metaphysical speculation has contributed to our understanding of the universe.

In short: science refines, religion clings, and your arguments flail. Stick with evidence, Atla, or feel free to retreat into your Matrix musings. We’ll stay here in reality, where progress happens.

[BigMike]

Pro tip: if you want to argue about epistemology, try using your own brain instead of hiding behind a chatbot. Or don’t—it’s deterministic anyway.

I was indeed arguing about epistemology when I wrote that it is a Platonic abstraction, to which you replied that my view would be wrong and confused, while chatGPT wrote that it was perfectly fine, to which you essentially answered that chatGPT would also be wrong and confused

The original question remains, of course. Who else can we get to weigh in on the matter?

"Who else can we get to weigh in on the matter?" How about reality?

Godelian, your endless appeal to external validation is as tiresome as it is irrelevant. Let me break it down for you: whether epistemology can be loosely described as a “Platonic abstraction” doesn’t change the fact that your application of it is laughably flawed. ChatGPT agreeing with your semantics doesn’t make your argument correct—it just means you found a chatbot willing to humor your misunderstanding. Bravo.

Here’s the thing: epistemology isn’t about spinning metaphysical fairy tales or retreating into abstractions; it’s about grounding our understanding in methods that work. Science does that by tying abstract concepts like falsifiability and causality to observable reality. Religion and philosophical navel-gazing, on the other hand, do nothing but build castles in the sky.

If your big question is “Who else can weigh in?” then the answer is simple: look at the results. Science has a proven track record of refining knowledge, curing diseases, and building the very technology you’re using to type this nonsense. Your Platonic abstractions and appeals to chatbot wisdom? Not so much.

So, instead of outsourcing your thinking to yet another "referee," maybe try grappling with the reality that science delivers because it doesn’t rely on metaphysical fluff or divine guesswork. The fact that you’re still fishing for someone else to validate your position just underscores its hollowness.

[Atla]

"Faith-Based Science"? Try Again, Atla

Atla, your attempts to sound profound are collapsing under the weight of your contradictions and misunderstandings. Let’s clear this up.

First, your assertion that presenting the known laws of physics as “axiomatic” is faith-based is laughable. Science doesn’t demand faith—it demands evidence. The laws of physics aren’t declared sacred; they’re continuously tested, refined, and revised as necessary. Unlike religious dogma, they’re not untouchable truths; they’re working models that stand until proven otherwise. Faith is clinging to something without evidence. Science is the opposite—grounded in observable, replicable facts.

You then accuse me of over-speculating while simultaneously indulging in your own “maybe the laws of physics aren’t consistent” fantasy. Here’s the difference: I’m sticking to what’s evidenced. If you want to argue that the laws might vary, you’ll need more than vague articles suggesting possible anomalies. Show repeatable, robust data proving inconsistencies. Otherwise, you’re just waving your hands and shouting “what if,” which contributes nothing.

And let’s address your links. Yes, scientists explore possibilities. That’s the point of science—to ask questions and test limits. But until those anomalies become solid evidence of something groundbreaking, they remain hypotheses, not contradictions of existing laws. You confuse exploratory research with proof of inconsistency. They’re not the same.

So here’s the real issue: your argument amounts to taking a swing at science for not being omniscient, as if a method that acknowledges its limits is somehow flawed. But that humility is why science works. Unlike religion, it’s not afraid to say, “We don’t know—yet.” Your nitpicking only highlights how little religion or metaphysical speculation has contributed to our understanding of the universe.

In short: science refines, religion clings, and your arguments flail. Stick with evidence, Atla, or feel free to retreat into your Matrix musings. We’ll stay here in reality, where progress happens.

Jesus Christ are you stupid. YOU ascribed omniscience to science. Read again:

1. Science doesn’t operate on “absolute certainty.” It operates on evidence, falsifiability, and probabilities.
2. Therefore science can't tell what is impossible and what isn't.

"Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?"

In other words according to you anything is impossible if we don't have substantial evidence for it.

[godelian]

Here’s the thing: epistemology isn’t about spinning metaphysical fairy tales or retreating into abstractions; it’s about grounding our understanding in methods that work. Science does that by tying abstract concepts like falsifiability and causality to observable reality.

Epistemology does not use the scientific method. It does not provide justification for its claims by means of experimental testing. Epistemology is not even observable in physical reality. Again, scientism is a false belief. Any attempt at using the scientific method is epistemology is bound to fail.

[BigMike]

"Faith-Based Science"? Try Again, Atla

Atla, your attempts to sound profound are collapsing under the weight of your contradictions and misunderstandings. Let’s clear this up.

First, your assertion that presenting the known laws of physics as “axiomatic” is faith-based is laughable. Science doesn’t demand faith—it demands evidence. The laws of physics aren’t declared sacred; they’re continuously tested, refined, and revised as necessary. Unlike religious dogma, they’re not untouchable truths; they’re working models that stand until proven otherwise. Faith is clinging to something without evidence. Science is the opposite—grounded in observable, replicable facts.

You then accuse me of over-speculating while simultaneously indulging in your own “maybe the laws of physics aren’t consistent” fantasy. Here’s the difference: I’m sticking to what’s evidenced. If you want to argue that the laws might vary, you’ll need more than vague articles suggesting possible anomalies. Show repeatable, robust data proving inconsistencies. Otherwise, you’re just waving your hands and shouting “what if,” which contributes nothing.

And let’s address your links. Yes, scientists explore possibilities. That’s the point of science—to ask questions and test limits. But until those anomalies become solid evidence of something groundbreaking, they remain hypotheses, not contradictions of existing laws. You confuse exploratory research with proof of inconsistency. They’re not the same.

So here’s the real issue: your argument amounts to taking a swing at science for not being omniscient, as if a method that acknowledges its limits is somehow flawed. But that humility is why science works. Unlike religion, it’s not afraid to say, “We don’t know—yet.” Your nitpicking only highlights how little religion or metaphysical speculation has contributed to our understanding of the universe.

In short: science refines, religion clings, and your arguments flail. Stick with evidence, Atla, or feel free to retreat into your Matrix musings. We’ll stay here in reality, where progress happens.

Jesus Christ are you stupid. YOU ascribed omniscience to science. Read again:

1. Science doesn’t operate on “absolute certainty.” It operates on evidence, falsifiability, and probabilities.
2. Therefore science can't tell what is impossible and what isn't.

"Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?"

In other words according to you anything is impossible if we don't have substantial evidence for it.

Atla, the only thing more absurd than your misunderstanding of science is the irony of invoking Jesus Christ in an attempt to insult someone. Let’s unpack this mess of a response.

First, your claim that I ascribed "omniscience" to science is laughably false. Science doesn’t deal in omniscience or absolutes—it deals in probabilities and evidence. That’s the point you clearly can’t grasp. When we lack evidence for something, we don’t declare it “impossible” with absolute certainty; we dismiss it as irrelevant until evidence suggests otherwise. This isn’t a flaw—it’s why science works. Contrast that with religion, which declares impossibilities and miracles without a shred of evidence.

Now, your assertion that “according to you anything is impossible if we don’t have substantial evidence for it” is a blatant misrepresentation. Here’s the real deal: science doesn’t deal with absolute impossibilities—it deals with what’s reasonable to believe based on the evidence at hand. If you want to claim something is possible—be it God, miracles, or Matrix-style trolling—you bear the burden of proof. Waving your hands and shouting “but what if” isn’t an argument; it’s philosophical filler.

So let me spell it out for you: science doesn’t claim to know everything. It refines its understanding based on evidence, which is infinitely more useful than religion’s baseless proclamations or your lazy hypotheticals. If you’re still clinging to “but maybe” as your rebuttal, congratulations—you’ve contributed nothing to the discussion except a showcase of your own intellectual floundering.

In short: read more, speculate less, and if you want to insult someone’s intelligence, make sure your argument isn’t the one falling apart.

[BigMike]

Here’s the thing: epistemology isn’t about spinning metaphysical fairy tales or retreating into abstractions; it’s about grounding our understanding in methods that work. Science does that by tying abstract concepts like falsifiability and causality to observable reality.

Epistemology does not use the scientific method. It does not provide justification for its claims by means of experimental testing. Epistemology is not even observable in physical reality. Again, scientism is a false belief. Any attempt at using the scientific method is epistemology is bound to fail.

Godelian, your argument reads like a desperate attempt to sound profound while missing the point entirely. Yes, epistemology isn’t tested through experiments—it’s the study of knowledge, not a physical phenomenon. But here’s where your argument collapses: epistemology isn’t at odds with science; it’s foundational to it. The scientific method exists because epistemology underpins it with concepts like falsifiability and causality, which are then applied to observable phenomena.

Claiming “scientism is a false belief” is just a lazy jab to dismiss science when it’s inconvenient. The scientific method doesn’t pretend to solve philosophical abstractions—it refines our understanding of reality based on evidence. If you think epistemology and science are incompatible, you’ve misunderstood both.

So here’s the deal: if epistemology can’t be tied to observable outcomes, it’s just a mental exercise with no relevance to reality. Science takes those abstract principles and turns them into something useful—unlike your argument, which contributes nothing but hand-waving and hot air.

[godelian]

[Yes, epistemology isn’t tested through experiments—it’s the study of knowledge, not a physical phenomenon.

That is exactly the point I made.