Proving What We Already "Know"

[bennyboy]

That's fine, but then you have to define all those terms.

Really?  That's alot of words up there.  IDK...I kind f figured you were a fellow english speaker.

Lets try something more targeted.  Some...but surely not all......of the wrod above ruffle your feathers.  Which ones?  Why?

Okay, let's start with "physical."  What does that word mean to you?  How about "natural?"  In daily conversation, those words are sensible enough: "I sustained actual physical damage, not just psychological," or "hemp is a natural fiber, as opposed to nylon."

But in the context of empty tables vs. solid ones, and the discussion of utility of perceptions that don't accurately portray the world, then I would need more precise definitions to understand the axioms that underly your definition of science, or the assertions you are making about it.

For example, what if I amended your definition to "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the world through observation and experiment"? Would dropping the words "physical" or "natural" substantively change the meaning of your definition of science? Did you simply mean to exclude introspectionism from the definition of science, or are you implying that there are multiple worlds which might be studied, with science studying only that/those which are of a certain type?