Can't we just say that there's no such thing as truth? Our epistemology, at least for model-dependent realists, assumes that there's no such baseline -- there's no static reality against which we must measure the success of our perceptions. Reality is instead just valued against a floating relationship between the knowledge and the observation's moment in space-time, a function of the relationship itself as well as the necessity and utility that motivated the acquisition of that particular knowledge. Empiricism could indeed answer that sort of question, anyway. Instead of what is our foundation for truth, it only has to tell us what is the best way to arrive at knowledge that ends up being most reliable to suit the motive for the observation.

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.

Maybe you’re using “discriminate” in the sense that it’s the active choice of a policy-making body to contrive things to create a certain outcome. Make laws, establish institutions and classist social structure, etc. And that’s indeed different than contriving things so as to create a non-discriminatory outcome. You see? We surely apply some discriminating practices that lead to both types of outcome. For example, laws are made to (supposedly) ensure that everyone has equal access to basic liberties. And of course any of those policy actions can simultaneously create discrimination in some areas while relieving it in others.

So it’s difficult to go anywhere useful with your argument. You’re proposing that an A should be done because it leads to so much obviously beneficial B outcome. Sort of like saying we should blot out the sun because that’ll save everyone from the discomfort of sunburn. (Sorry, I stretched for that analogy.) For me at least, it begs the question of what is the trade off. And that would surely be my first contention to your argument if I were trying to argue this like a real philosopher.

If that was indeed what you meant by discriminating, I wonder if you could reframe your proposition around the whole set of possible outcomes. As in, doing A leads to all these different Bs, and most of them are good, therefore we should do A. At least, that’s something I could sink my teeth into.

And maybe you only meant we should prevent discriminatory outcomes. But that gets us into even more of a tangle, it seems, because I’d quickly argue that it’s impossible to prevent any sort of outcome in society and commerce without imposing some sort of discretionary (discriminating) policy, law, or governance structure. And if there’s no practical consequence to the proposition, it’s not really an argument as much as it’s just wishful thinking.

If I were your coach I’d suggest changing your approach to the two exercises that don’t show a sigmoid shape (after congratulating you on the two that do). And, yeah, if I were a coach I’d be the type that’s obsessed with performance data.

Similar mechanisms may be at play in boosting the efficacy of the vaccine. At least, I thought I once saw a suggestion that physical activity might be beneficial concurrent with getting vaccinated - it supposedly improves the immune response. I don't know if that was ever studied, but like a good, obsessive health nut I made the most of it. When the pandemic started I amped up my running in spite of the dirty looks I got from all the locked-down, germaphobic walkers who were suddenly crowding my routes. (And even the most sane of us had turned into a germaphobe!) And in the days surrounding my vax and booster I dragged myself out to run as though I was swallowing medicine. And look -- I've yet to suffer any Covid symptoms, even though I've shared a house with those who have. Yeah, I realize that this is anecdotal. Just saying.

And of course, this could be only correlation without causation. That is, having an effective immune response might be the primary reason anyone is able to remain (and report being) "always active" as well as why they're so much less likely to die. A person's activity level could be nothing but an inconsequential feature.