What is the difference between science or non-science and

is there a difference between science axiom’s compared to logic?

 

To me, the difference between science and non-science? Science begins with methodological rationalism whereas non-science is heavy with beliefs that may not even have an ethics of belief attached to them thus are not starting with methodological system of methods in thought, actions or conclusions by means of a sold relation to valid and reliable reason and/or evidence like science. Moreover, to me, axiom’s should in some way be derived from some application of logic or at least part of the motivation for desiring a worthy axiom.

To me, roughly science begins with methodological rationalism as it utilized logically/rationally sand experientially/empirically as well as methodological skepticism axiom’s to establish valid Science factors. We often think of reliability and validity as separate ideas but, in fact, they’re related to each other. Here, I want to show you two ways you can think about their relationship is what I see science generally using reliability and validity to establish its axiom’s.

Religion and Science are Completely Different Epistemologies: Some try to say that science and religion ear not that different saying they both use faith. This is utter nonsense, not only does science not use faith as a method for anything, religion and science are completely different epistemologies. Scientists reason differently than most nonscientists because of a standardized focus on scientific based reasoning and scientific epistemology.

A basic outline of scientific epistemology:

Science: Hypotheses (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) + Testing (Empiricism/Systematic Observation) – Checking for errors (Skepticism/Fallibilism) + Interpret/Draw a Conclusion (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) *if valid* = Scientific Laws (describes observed phenomena) or Scientific Theory (substantiated and repeatedly tested explanation of phenomena) = Justified True Belief = Scientific Knowledge = Epistemic Certainty supportive of correctability

*being epistemic certainty is believing a truth has the highest epistemic status,

often with warranted psychological certainty but it may not, neither is it a requirement*

A basic outline of religious epistemology:

Religion: Culture/Testimony/Myths/Scriptures/Revelation/Prophecies (arbitrary and unjustified way of coming to ideas or Idealism) + Mysticism, Supernaturalism, Spirtualism, or Theology (arbitrary and unjustified to form explanations, Idealism or misuse of Rationalism; often self-justified or even believe they are beyond a need for justification) – Denial of Relevant Alternatives and Basis (Fideism/Dogmatic Foundationalism/Pseudo-Skepticism/Anti-Rationalism/Anti-Empiricism or Anti-Skepticism) + Superstition, Falsehood, Misconception, Fantasy, or Delusion (unsubstantiated ideas and unjustified way of coming to ideas or Idealism) = Religion Reality Theory = Unjustified Untrue Faith Belief = Religion Faith or Beliefs as Knowledge = Unwarranted Psychological Certainty supportive of incorrectability

*being psychologically certain believing a truth does not mean that something is not actually false*

To me, science is a system where justified true beliefs are derived from objective methodologies such as the scientific method and religion is a system of unjustified beliefs based on subjective faith or revelation. We must not confuse beliefs, religion is beliefs built from myths devoid of corroborating evidence. Science uses corroborating evidence to establish what is true and that offers something worthy to believe.

We must not confuse beliefs, religion is beliefs built from myths devoid of corroborating evidence. Science uses corroborating evidence to establish what is true and that offers something worthy to believe.