I’m not sure I really understand this point. I believe that the scientific method (hypothesis, repeated tests, reality check) is the only successful method we’ve developed to advance our understanding of how the world works. I never claimed it’s perfect but that’s shaky footing that’s being injected onto this position. A counterclaim has to show that there’s something better than the scientific method that humans have been engaging in for attaining a better understanding of reality.

Often such attempts try to just wholly put themselves outside the realm of science which I don’t think puts them on strong footing. Just like updates to standard models still have to explain our current understandings of quantum and relativity, alternate methodologies for observing reality have to hold up to scientific scrutiny.

But I claim ignorance here. What better mechanisms has humanity developed for observing and understanding reality?