Hi

That's the whole thing, though - isn't it?

Some people will use a filter on some data points and have less (sometimes accidentally.)
Other people will have dirty lenses and include data points that don't actually exist (again, sometimes accidentally.)

We all end up with different maps.

The question is: Why do you want the map?

Many people want the map in order to feel secure or feel happy or feel... something.
-such people don't care if they (accidentally or not) don't have an accurate map... they have a map that "works for them."

Many people want the map in order to... have an accurate map.
-such people will scrutinize and compare maps, and develop methods to identify filters and dirty lenses and make the required corrections for an "accurate map."
-for now, Science has been developed, tested, and proven to be our far-and-away-best-method for identifying filters and dirty lenses (accidental or otherwise) and get as close as we possibly can to "an accurate map."

So, the question for you is: Why do you want the map?

Be honest with yourself.
There really is no wrong answer.

If you want to feel... something... from your map.
-there will be those who support you, and those who think you're being foolish
-just be honest and do the map for you... it's your map, who else should it be for?
-again, just be honest, if your map is not focused on "being the most accurate map possible" but more for your own feelings/well-being... be aware that "accuracy" is not the strong point of your map, and therefore "knowing how reality works" shouldn't be something you consider yourself an expert on
-of course, you should be able to consider yourself an expert on "taking care of yourself" as that's what your map's focusing on

If you want accuracy from your map.
-there will be those who support you, and those who think you're being foolish
-just be honest and do the map for you... it's your map, who else should it be for?
-again, just be honest, even if your map is focused on accuracy, it will have limitations and areas outside of your personal knowledge-level... understand these and you'll understand where the "strong point" of your map is and where there is more learning to be done
-only if you can understand which points are strong, and which are weak... will you be able to appropriately consider yourself an expert in the proper areas

There is no "one-size-fits-all" map.
There is no "Oh, this works for me.. I'm sure you'll love it to!" map.
There is no "well, this map is fully complete and perfect..." (on any side of what kind of map you're after.)
There are no easy answers - if there were, we would all have them. Just as we all know that 4 apples is more than 3 apples. Easy answers are known and agreed on by all.

Complicated matters do not have 'full solutions.'
Anyone who claims to have 'all the answers' most definitely does not.
It is up to us to decide which areas of the complicated matters we want to focus on.
It is up to us to judge which areas of the complicated matter we're able to understand, and which are beyond our (possibly only 'current') understanding.

Okay, sounds like a good place to start.

Not quite true. And the part that isn't "quite true" may be leading you to think incorrect things about science.

1. This is very important: Anything and everything that can possibly exist is discoverable by science.

2. What you may be thinking of is: To know anything for sure with the scientific method, the thing you want to know for sure must reliably repeat.
-and, really, what other way actually allows you to "know something for sure" unless it's repeatable?
-if you can actually identify another method - I'm personally incredibly interested in it

To understand the power of Science, you really need to understand the difference between discovery and "knowing for sure" and how Science applies itself differently to the different areas.

Scientific Discovery includes (but is not limited to):
-guessing
-trying anything at all
-being illogical
-being irrational
-following personal curiosity
-being surprised

The results of this stage can include (again, are not limited to):
-the thing doesn't exist
-the thing does exist
-the thing may exist, don't have enough information yet
-various levels of 'confidence' along multiples of the above as more and more information is gathered

Scientific Knowing For Sure includes (requires):
-reliable repeatability
-the same results repeated for multiple different people
-describing the thing in as much detail as possible, ensuring that terms are well defined and cannot be confused with other already-existing-things

Please note that none of the "Knowing for Sure" items are included in the "Discovery" stage.

Many scientists make nonsensical statements.
That's the power of Science.
The nonsensical makes people curious. Others will test and check and double-check.
Once many people investigate... a consensus will begin to emerge.
That consensus lead by the evidence will describe the "best possible guess" of the thing's existence in reality.
ALL things in Science can always be overturned at any time if new evidence shows it's wrong.

All 5 of your "problems with Science" are actually the strengths of science... you're just picking 10% of what science does around those issues and saying "see! see?!!! Look at the problems that exist in Science!!"

Yes - those problems exist.
And, of course, the other 90% of science is built exactly to use those problems as strengths in order to increase "what we know" about reality.

Science step 1: A problem occurs that creates a controversy
-problem can be nonsensical, or labelled as "an illusion" or claimed by arrogant closed-minded dicks

Science step 2: More and more different people study the controversy
-as more and more people study it, some will agree with the original claim while others disagree

Science step 3: As study grows, so does evidence about the controversy
-the evidence will support and reject various different claims... regardless of who originally claimed them and whether or not they were regarded as "nonsensical" originally.

Science step 4: The evidence will grow and become overwhelming to support one main claim
-those who are honest and follow the evidence will see this, adjust, and Science and our knowledge will grow
-those who do not follow the evidence will obviously be seen as such and will eventually become known as 'quacks' or even 'liars' if they're too arrogant

Science step 5: The evidence grows even more, and the main claim is refined into smaller details
-our knowledge of reality grows

Can you provide one example of Science ever filtering out an aspect of the universe that's known to be real?

I bet that if you provide me with an alternative system than Science for figuring things out about reality... that I can do one of two things: Show you how they simply follow Science anyway, or I can show you an example of them filtering out an aspect of the universe that's known to be real.
Example: Fundamental Christianity: Filters out the known-to-be-real aspect of realty that "no world-wide flood where only a hand-ful of humans survived has ever occurred."

If you cannot provide one example of Science ever filtering out an aspect of the universe that's known to be real... then what better method do you propose to use in order to focus on a map that's focused on discovering the truth about reality?

Please also take note... NOVELTY is not filtered out of Science.
It's simply still in the discovery stage.
If it's ever known to be real... it will be Science that confirms this.
Unless, again... you have another method that confirms things to be real that's better than Science?

Try not to over generalize... it will lead you into thinking things that are not true.

YOUR "ultimate goal of knowledge" may very well be power or potential power.
MY "ultimate goal of knowledge" is simply to feed my curiosity - I get bored, and knowledge is fun for me. But I don't give two shits about this "power" you speak of.

I think that's a very easily-corrupted way of framing an important aspect of your thoughts.

Frame your goals in a certain way... and you're then framing your "truth."
To me... that which is most true is... that which is most true. Why does it need another limitation or addition onto it? Why can't truth exist on it's own, independent of us or our goals? It does have it's own word to describe it and doesn't seem to require our intervention or attention.

Again... try not to over generalize.
This is a YOU thing. Not a ME thing and certainly not an EVERYONE thing.

I find it leaning towards exciting to encounter things that aren't on my map.
-some can be scary or stressful
-others can be beautiful or even helpful

Others different from both of us live to strive constantly to encounter things that aren't on their map and make it a daily devotion to search for such things.
-such people are not caused stress and anxiety, but gain great pleasure and security from such searching

People are different.
There are certainly many similarities... but over generalization leads to over simplification which leads to missing out on a whole lot of the details.

Many people are.
Many people aren't.
Many would cross the fence.
Many would focus more on the house itself.

Either way... you're gaining something, and missing out on something else.

Your path is your path. There is no right or wrong path. Only the one that works for you.

Very true.

My posts always go so long... and I still miss so much

In my verbose-way, I would explain it like this:

There's "data" and there's "repeatability."
Both are important, and both increase our levels of confidence in the conclusion.

Repeatability doesn't necessarily require additional events to occur.
As long as the observation is repeatable: 4 apples is more than 3. There is only 1 event: 4 apples, and 3 apples. But the observation is repeatable as long as the apples are there on the table. Or as long as a picture of the apples is taken and that picture is available. 1 event. But it can have 1 observer repeat his observations many times. Or many observers can come at different times and repeat the same observation. Still just 1 event.

Increase the data, and "repeatability" increases even more.

Make 10 tables. Each with 4 apples and 3 apples. The observations can be repeated 10 more times for each observer.

More events make more data which makes for more repeatability which makes for more confidence.

However, repeatability itself does not require more data... it is possible (if the data can be captured correctly) to do repeatable observations on a single event.
More data is just "incredibly helpful" for more repeatability and helps the confidence and understanding grow greatly.