I've been thinking about what you said and really trying to give it a fair shake in my mind, but some of it just doesn't make sense to me.
From what I can understand, you're saying that science is like religion because it assumes that there is a reality that exists outside of the observer.
You're essentially arguing for solipsism, aren't you?
I think any field of study involving more than 1 person must assume that each of us is 1 individual among many individuals existing on the same planet. This is hardly an extreme or a religious perspective. Sure, you could say it's something that religion and science have in common. Both believe that we live in a greater, objective reality. But that seems like a silly way to *define* what a religion is, or lump them together.
Of course — as scientists will point out! — our entire experience of the universe comes from our brains. Everything that we perceive as being "out there" is actually chemical and electrical signals being interpreted by our brains. It is also true that our minds are unreliable observers, prone to all kinds of bias. None of this is lost on scientists... and that's why they remain as skeptical as they do, that's why they try to use data that is least vulnerable to misinterpretation, and are willing to change their minds and admit they were wrong when they see better evidence...
And indeed, there are situations where 50 people could look at the same information and conclude wildly different things. Politics are a great example. But I think there's a spectrum: politics are extremely complicated and nuanced, and don't exist as an objective thing we can measure. They're a subjective social phenomenon. The judgments we make about politics rely on constructs which rely on other constructs, many layers deep.
On the other side of the spectrum, there are things that nearly everybody agrees about. Measuring a temperature is a good example. You can put a thermometer outside and focus a video camera on it. On a typical day, it will start off cooler in the morning, warm to a high temperature in the afternoon, and cool off again in the evening. Everybody who looks at the thermometer will see this happening. It will also match with bodily perception of temperature change. You can look at the video footage and see that the same information was recorded by the camera.
Are you suggesting that we actually have zero reliable information about the temperature in this case? It only felt hotter in the afternoon because people expected it to? They look at the thermometer, and their brains saw whatever they expected to see? The video footage, which can be analyzed digitally without any human observation, is also a product of the imagination?
In a case where everyone agrees without dispute, I think the most simple and likely explanation is "there is actually a physical property corresponding with our concept of temperature and it does rise throughout the day due to the sun, until we have reason to believe otherwise." But I'm curious what you think is a better explanation. If everyone agrees, but we all completely invent our own reality, how are they all having the exact same hallucination? What's controlling that, if not some outside force? Are we just hallucinating that other people exist at all? If you think that, why are you even bothering to write to me — if I am nothing but part of your imagination? Surely everything that is in your imagination is also part of your mind and already understands what you think.
