People get sick of things all the time of all kinds of things, doesn't mean that a global lock down is the appropriate response or that the statistics you're accepting are actually correct.
And there are many explanations that could explain heat waves, you can't use your eyes to justify an acceptance of the global warming explanation. All you've done is accepted the dominant narrative on faith.
Face it, you just don't know what is true. You can't know as an individual.. all you can do is hope that the people who say they know, actually are correct. But that requires trust and faith.
Your premises are sort of correct but your conclusion is not, because it is a hyperbole.
A physicist may not have personally built up mathematics from the base axioms, but he/she can trust that he/she can apply the learnt formulas when appropriate without it, because there are others who done so, and there are overlaps between all these.
Similarly, while there are some problem with reproducibility in sciences (often it is due to lack of knowledge of statistics), there are large agreements in the science community on basic facts.
Understanding science is a mentally challenging thing, and we are by nature lazy. That doesn’t make the easier to understand alternative true.
This isn't about laziness or the difficulty in understanding anything. There is a fundamental limitation of perception and cognition. Science can only describe what it sees. But it never knows if there is something important yet undiscovered that will change the analysis, because you just can't know what you don't know.
The universe is always capable of surprise. We are trapped forever with a limitation in what kind of pronouncements we can make about truth. The best we could ever say, is that something appears to be true today.
For instance, there is a chance that we are actually in a simulation -- that we're literally just a running computer program. If that is the case, the programmers of that simulation could change the instructions that control our physics at any moment. And everything that you have declared "true" will have to be reevaluated.
This might seem unlikely, but it is not impossible, and so science has to keep an open mind and hedge its bets when making any declaration about reality. Science can only give you a probability that something is true, it can not ever say things with 100% confidence.
Science does have some “dependency” on the philosophy of sciences, and while pedantic, simulation is a possibility, but so is “the world popped into existence this morning in a state that we have a collective memory of an imaginary past, and with dinosaur bones in the ground etc”. But this requires much much more presupposition than the scientifically accepted position with the Big Bang et al.
And in my view, it is only of limited importance to look for what possible, but not probable explanations we can make up.
> And in my view, it is only of limited importance to look for what possible
That's fine. We have to be pragmatic and can't go around worried about ghosts. But the point is that we have to be honest about the nature of "truth". It is provisional and only our best effort given our relationship with the universe.
And because we must admit that there is no such thing as 100% truth, we should be more humble than going around making pronouncements with such certainty as if we know more than we are actually even able to know.
On that basis it is impossible to literally know anything. At a certain point to function as a human some basic reasoning and common sense needs to be applied.
Yes, that's the pragmatic approach, which is necessary. But just because you apply some "basic reasoning and common sense" doesn't mean you have any more access to the truth than anyone else. Science teaches us just how much we don't know, and in fact can never know. It's worth remembering that and having some humility in our pronouncements since the very nature of our relationship to the universe leaves us largely unable to say things with certainty. As the star wars nerds say.. only the Sith deal in absolutes.
And there are many explanations that could explain heat waves, you can't use your eyes to justify an acceptance of the global warming explanation. All you've done is accepted the dominant narrative on faith.
Face it, you just don't know what is true. You can't know as an individual.. all you can do is hope that the people who say they know, actually are correct. But that requires trust and faith.