I like your presentation a lot, Jason, and it makes the overall idea pretty clear. It is pretty clear, too, that it is not correct, and I like your presentation surrounding this idea therefore very much. You remain neutral in tone in as far as possible.
For me, Science is a field, and it looks like it is the same to you.
For scientists to claim being best or just better means that they must have a clear understanding of that field.
And that is where the options are already diverting.
Let me put it bluntly that the Scientific Realm does not know any boundaries. Anything can become subjected to a scientific purview and as such anything is indeed on the table.
But the second part, the Scientific Reach, is often overstated. Many scientists think that they can claim the Scientific Realm, but they forget that the Scientific Reach falls short (will always fall short) compared to the Scientific Realm.
That means that your good arguments are placed inside a field, while the actual field is larger. Non-scientists can boldly go where scientists dare not thread.
Then there is the following issue, too:
Scientists follow certain rules, but they sometimes apply them in areas it should not be applied to.
The pesky one I have started to hate (I really look down on it) is the falsification requirement. I have no problem with it when applied correctly. But so many use it willy-nilly.
When things can be investigated and repeated, then the falsification requirement makes a lot of sense. But when situations cannot be repeated, then falsification is used as a power tool and not as a scientific tool. Meaning, one can abort any scientific position when falsification is not available. That makes no sense when the falsification option is not part of the foundation of what is being investigated/discussed.
The materialization process comes to mind, for instance, as something that cannot be repeated. We have few scientific facts available from the event itself. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is an important fact, and the outbound motion seen among all matter is another one.
From the event itself, we have of course the material result. Yet investigating that result and then applying the findings of that result to the materialization process itself is not very satisfying. We can build greenhouses in Alaska (or the Large Hadron Collider) and import rubber plants from Brazil (or investigate matter in that particle accelerator), but one cannot come to the conclusion from the findings that rubber trees grow in Alaska indeed. It is literally planted evidence.
Applying the falsification requirement makes us believe we are following the facts, but we end up embracing a lie.
An example I have used with pleasure is the question how babies are made. We all know the answer of course, but envision a 8 year old who does not know. This 8 year old follows the scientific method and investigates several babies. Based on the finding the 8 year old tells us how babies are made. Yes, that is going to be funny. Babies cannot tell us how babies are made (some parts may be spot on, but the crux of the matter will be missed). Investigating matter is not going to tell us how matter got produced (thought it can help to some extent of course, but the crux of the matter will be missed).
There is always more:
Moving toward the prior state of the universe, scientists say two conflicting things at the same time:
* Energy cannot get lost
* The prior state of the universe is not a certainty
I hope you can see that two persons can take in these two positions, but that one person cannot say both things at the same time.
I cannot tell you how many 'scientists' I came across who say A/Energy does not get lost and B/ Demand evidence that there was a prior state of the universe.
It is actually the opposite.
If we indeed say that energy does not get lost (and last time I looked we are all saying that), then we can request evidence when a person says it did not exist prior. Of course, that person's hand will be empty.
You see? Scientists are not professional in some parts of the Scientific Realm. They structure things one way, and sometimes demand evidence via another way.
As I see it, scientists think they are building a house, but on close examination there are two building sites. One site has the foundation, the basement, the rooms, and the other site has the ceilings and the roof.
As soon as someone tries to crane the roof on top of the foundation and the rooms, all these scientists come screaming that you cannot lift the roof from its foundation.
So we end up with two correct scientific structures, but not one building.
Anyone poking fun of this situation is shot on sight.
Conclusion: the pathway scientists are taking can show that scientists may know less than non-scientists because scientists do not always question themselves and their methods. They have not heard about mirrors and when others bring mirrors they are welcomed with clubs.
The Scientific Realm is enormous. The Scientific Reach falls short of it, as in always.
If interested:
"The Scientific Blind Spot"
https://fred-rick.medium.com/the-scientific-blind-spot-2bf83140f7e8
