>If your definition of "epistemological claims" only includes those philosophy-ejaculate sentences that cannot be tested by science, then your definition is use

>If your definition of "epistemological claims" only includes those philosophy-ejaculate sentences that cannot be tested by science, then your definition is useless and boring. The entirety of your post above is comprised of sentences that cannot be tested by science. There's lots that can't be tested by science like mathematics (no mathematical truth has ever been proven by science), logic (no syllogism can be proved by science), epistemology (no claims about truth per se or what knowledge is per se or how one can gain knowledge can be proved by science), philosophy of science (most of your post was not science but the kind of blundered epistemology and philosophy of science folks who haven't studied the topics repeat), etc. The problems here have been hashed out by philosophers of science, worth re-examining your biases against primary forms of human reasoning here. Since science is rooted in mathematics and logic, hopefully you at least admit of the possibilities of truths there. And if you spend some time learning about these things and actually think them through, you'll eventually realize the inevitability that those truths can only. be meaningfully true if you have space for the possibility of other philosophic truths in spaces like epistemology. Worth considering if there's a possibility of ethical truth as well, might not be a great idea to throw that out.