>>10882851>what’s the benefit of subscribing to the scientific worldview on a philosophical level?
Because it seems to work better than anything else we've tried. It doesn't even have to be "true": we know that Newtonian mechanics isn't "true" in any meaningful sense of the word, but it still "works" as a useful approximation in most human contexts.>>10883051>no one can rightly say that “testing ideas against reality” is the exclusive property of modern science
The characteristic of modern science is that it takes that process of testing ideas and applies it in a systematic, autistic way to obtain much more accurate results. What you're saying basically is that we've been doing science in a primitive form even when we were still cavemen, which is true. The very fact you bring this up proves that there is no serious alternative to the scientific worldview which does not involve some kind of religious dogma to be upheld against all evidence.