Feel free to label it however you like, but observing and testing is the only way to obtain knowledge.
how do you know?
For truth to exist in any meaningful way, there must be some way to objectively distinguish truth from untruth.
what does the existence of meaningful truth have to do with our understanding of it?
do you mean to say that science invalidates philosophy in that it invents truth rather than simply validating it?
If something could be both the way that it is and the way that it isn't at the same time, then the concept of truth would be complete nonsense.
and that something is itself and never not itself in the same respect and in the same instance is the biggest assumption in philosophy and logic.
Observing and testing is what allows us to differentiate between the two.
do they? if science did so, it would only be according to certain axioms and already held understandings. observation is one thing, but what constitutes a theory, a law, a hypothesis? how easily can we rely on an idea? can things contradict, and if we observe a contradiction is something wrong with our observation? should data collection rely purely on observation, or can unobservables be placed in a set in order to make sense of it, like physics sometimes does with mathematics? should all branches of science do that? are all the branches of science equal in authority? what about their terminology? is the best view of science pragmatic and instrumental (the value of a scientific idea is in it's usefulness, not the truth of it. truth is irrelevant), or is scientific realism the best view? all these are philosophical questions, and they govern how science is done and how the results are interpreted.
Simply claiming that there is some other way of determining truth without any sort of reasoning or support does not make it so.
do you understand that you're arguing against reason?
all knowledge of truth relies on abstract assumption.
science is a way to arrive at the knowledge of truth.
science relies on abstract assumption.
translates into
syllogism,
Barbara figure 1
AMP
ASM
____
ASP
can be defended formally and indirectly by:
AMP & ASM |- ASP
Line number: 1. assumption: 1 Proposition: AMP Justification: assumption.
Line number: 2. assumption: 2 Proposition: ASM Justification: assumption.
Line number: 3. assumption: 3 proposition: OSP Justification: assumption. (RAA)
Line number: 4. assumption: 2 proposition AMS Justification: SC
Line number: 5. assumption: 2,3 proposition: OMP Justification: 2,3, Bocardo
Line number: 6. assumption: 1,2,3 proposition: OMP & AMP Justification: 1, 4 Baroco & I
Line number: 7. assumption: 1,2, proposition: ASP Justification: 3, 5 RAA
i think that's right.
all in all though. there's no way to prove Barbara since it's the most basic structure of syllogism. even syllogistic logic is based completely on assumption.