I have a good idea of what the scientific method is, but I use a definition I formulated myself, that is broader than the definition of scientific method that only imply a process used for collective learning and a necessary peer review, and I want to know if in the literature there are views similar to mine or not, and why. I also want to know if this definition is considered the best to obtain all kind of knowledge (besides some parts of epistemology itself like this definition, since we need them to come up with the scientific method itself in the first place) by some accredited philosophers.

With this broad definition of scientific method you can arrive to a priori knowledge thanks to pure math and the truths derived using only solipsism, and you can arrive to refined guesses that you can't know if they are knowledge or not thanks to empirical facts verified by only you or by many people. But the guesses are still the best thing you have and they are directionally correct. More facts = better and more people = better. The guesses constitute models about the world and simple observations, although I claim that everything can have a mathematical model. The facts can be both inside yourself (subjective truth) that constitute exhaustive evidence, and outside.

closed as off-topic by virmaior, Dave, Conifold, Joseph Weissman Jul 12 '17 at 19:16

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions that push a personal philosophy with no question beyond "am I right" or "what do you think" are off-topic here as this is not a blog. It's ok to express unique opinions, but you must have an actual, answerable question to go with them." – virmaior, Dave, Conifold, Joseph Weissman
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • I feel you answer your own question when you end by saying '... telling us there's probably a world that is not only our mind.' If this is the best your method can do for knowledge then it's not much use at all. A better method would allow you to know such things. To me it seems a mistake to re-define the scientific method. Your method produces relative knowledge. for instance that 'you are typing on a keyboard'. This is not even enough knowledge to banish Descartes' evil demon. For science this is fine, but for philosophy you set the bar for knowledge way too low. – PeterJ Jul 11 '17 at 11:36
  • 1
    There are a few free online resources in philosophy that offer introductory essays on philosophy topics by professional philosophers. Two examples that have articles on epistemology are the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I would recommend going and reading those articles and then coming back and asking a question because right now your question is incredibly long and a lot of the information you want is in those articles. – Not_Here Jul 11 '17 at 12:44
  • 1
    And to that point, the IEP is usually easier to read than the SEP so you might want to start with the second link. I think that at the present moment your question is just too long for what it is asking ("Does anyone think like me?"). Getting an introduction to epistemology from those articles will give you access to terminology that you can then use to make questions like this a lot more concise! – Not_Here Jul 11 '17 at 12:46
  • 1
    One primary challenge to an approach like this is that facts are context-dependent and theoretically embedded. There are not really 'facts', there are just 'facts given a theory'. To state a fact precisely, you need to be able to establish that what you are measuring is real, but that requires a lot of other facts, which cannot be established without confirming that other measures are real first. – jobermark Jul 11 '17 at 14:31
  • 1
    @Not_here I read the IEP link. I didn't know the stuff about JTB and Gettier, but luckily my terminology is still ok. Instead I already knew the stuff in section 4, and I provide my view on them in an in-depth way in my question. I couldn't probably make it much shorter. Or maybe I could with much more knowledge, but if I had it I wouldn't probably need an answer anymore. An answer to my question would probably save me months of aimless wandering through philosophy books. – emanuele ascani Jul 11 '17 at 16:03