I agree with you that scientific knowledge is axiomatic and conditional. It rests indeed in some assumptions since there can't be and might not be anything like "Truth".
Correct, the notion of knowledge as JTB doesn't work. Justification runs in to Agrippa's and truth is in effect subjective. Just like God, people can't agree on what truth is.
Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
In more broad terms, this part:
Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin,
philosophia, “love of wisdom”)
the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.
philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies
- failed. There is no coherent, rational, abstract, and methodical method to describe reality as a whole with JTB knowledge.
Hence when you look closer and you did it yourself, all humans in effect go first person subjective, when asked to justified their individual world view. I do it and you did it. You used useful, but when you test how useful works, it is always useful to somebody based on a subjective standard.
There is no hard barrier between science and philosophy. All sciences derive from philosophy and all philosophies are informed by scientific knowledge. This axiom is also understood to be informed by the fact that, indeed, the observable universe is predictable and possible to explore since we have done so for thousands of years. This is what gives it it's "scientific character".
That is a contradiction to how it comes that it is a principle. It is not a fact, because it can't be test using science and thus it is a principle.
I like how you apparently know that, since you did this: "scientific character".
Here again are the axioms that underlies science as a belief system.
The universe is natural.
The universe is fair.
The universe is knowable.
As for testing, everything you test as a human is not objective. You in effect subjectively test, what works for you. But becomes that is build as sort of automatic in an evolutionary and psychological sense, some people don't notice that they do it. It comes natural and they take it for granted without noticing that they do it subjectively.
So for a Boltzmann Brain universe and this: " The Boltzmann Brain universe is used as a thought experiment to measure the quality of theoretical models" please site evidence for that. That is not how I understand it, but I am willing to be corrected.
So here is the version of a BB universe I use. The universe in it self is enough space, an object with a power source and a
computer on it and on that computer is you running as a subprogram and the computer simulates the rest of the universe as you experience it to you.
You can't test that because you can't get outside the universe and as for the different versions in theoretical physics of a BB none of them can be tested.
BTW what is the objective, measurable scientific quality used to measure and test BB? There is none, because the probability of being a BB shifts with what you take for granted in a given model. In short there is no way to test the different model against each other using observation, because it is theoretical physics.
