If it’s a fallacy to argue for any non-regressive foundation of knowledge, isn’t it also odd to argue that scientism is a “best” path to knowledge? That is, the endpoint isn’t static, so there will be an infinite number of baselines to define what is the shortest or most accurate path. Scientism surely can’t always be the BEST path to a constantly moving target. And what are we saying about that degree of reliability if we agree that a discrete target doesn’t even exist until it’s observed?

I think it’s important to consider what knowledge really means when framing these arguments. Knowledge is mostly about utility, not possession of some singular truth. After all, we can’t prove that there’s any single truth of the state of reality, and what’s best for the owners of knowledge depends on their subjective and time-variant preferences. So it seems to me that all we can say is that Scientism is the most reliable path to a model of reality that’s eventually proven by accumulated verification. Anything further begs questions about the foundations against which we propose to measure this argument.

Sorry if I’m not making sense or committing some logical fallacy. I’m new, and I’m not a philosopher and barely a scientist. I do enjoy reading everyone’s ideas here, so thanks in advance for any help in following this conversation.