Empiricism, the epistemological foundation for science, is the theory that knowledge is only derived from empirical/physical phenomena. However, empiricism carries non-empirical assumptions, e.g. observation has no causal effect on physical reality.
The problem with an empirical methodology wielding non-empirical assumptions is that this means the assumptions are derived elsewhere. In this case, that "elsewhere" is philosophical. But, if we assume this non-empirical assumption to be valid, then we concede that knowledge must also derive from outside empiricism, i.e. outside science.
Yes, science works, and yes it produces technology that improves convenience and quality of life. That, however, does not mean it is the best source of knowledge in all cases, and we know this especially because science doesn't work without its philosophical and mathematical underpinnings.
I didn't replied to your post because your nick: "the joint"
I was told all my life that people do not believe me because I was high: now it's your turn.
Thank You and best regards.
em·pir·i·cism
əmˈpirəˌsizəm/
nounPHILOSOPHY
the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Observation_inseparable_from_theoryAlthough it is often taken for granted, it is not at all clear how one can infer the validity of a general statement from a number of specific instances or infer the truth of a theory from a series of successful tests.[12] For example, a chicken observes that each morning the farmer comes and gives it food, for hundreds of days in a row. The chicken may therefore use inductive reasoning to infer that the farmer will bring food every morning. However, one morning, the farmer comes and kills the chicken. How is scientific reasoning more trustworthy than the chicken's reasoning?
Any argument in favor of induction must avoid the problem of the criterion, in which any justification must in turn be justified, resulting in an infinite regress. The regress argument has been used to justify one way out of the infinite regress, foundationalism. Foundationalism claims that there are some basic statements that do not require justification. Both induction and falsification are forms of foundationalism in that they rely on basic statements that derive directly from immediate sensory experience.
Another approach is to acknowledge that induction cannot achieve certainty, but observing more instances of a general statement can at least make the general statement more probable.
All observation involves both perception and cognition. That is, one does not make an observation passively, but rather is actively engaged in distinguishing the phenomenon being observed from surrounding sensory data. Therefore, observations are affected by one's underlying understanding of the way in which the world functions, and that understanding may influence what is perceived, noticed, or deemed worthy of consideration. In this sense, it can be argued that all observation is theory-laden.
Moreover, most scientific observation must be done within a theoretical context in order to be useful. For example, when one observes a measured increase in temperature with a thermometer, that observation is based on assumptions about the nature of temperature and its measurement, as well as assumptions about how the thermometer functions. Such assumptions are necessary in order to obtain scientifically useful observations (such as, "the temperature increased by two degrees").