> Science has not proven that the observation will continue to hold. It happens to have worked so far, but you cannot prove that it will continue to.
Yes, that's true. So?
> You're applying the scientific method to itself
Yes, that's true too.
> This is precisely the grounds on which the Logical Positivists realized that they couldn't achieve their ends of putting science on a sound scientific footing.
Maybe, but I'm not making any claims about knowledge. The only claim I'm making is about effectiveness and that's an empirical claim. not a philosophical one. One can go on to hypothesize that science is effective because it is "true" (whatever that means). That seems plausible to me (for some reasonable definition of "true") but it's still just another hypothesis.
Yes, that's true. So?
> You're applying the scientific method to itself
Yes, that's true too.
> This is precisely the grounds on which the Logical Positivists realized that they couldn't achieve their ends of putting science on a sound scientific footing.
Maybe, but I'm not making any claims about knowledge. The only claim I'm making is about effectiveness and that's an empirical claim. not a philosophical one. One can go on to hypothesize that science is effective because it is "true" (whatever that means). That seems plausible to me (for some reasonable definition of "true") but it's still just another hypothesis.