Demonstrative and Mobilizing functions are Accepting NOT Producing.

[Soupman]

This is actually a supreme example of why empiricism and inductivism does NOT work.

When Copernicus and Galileo thought that the Earth was round and going around the Sun and not vice versa, their observations were perfectly consistent with the observation that the Earth is stationary. And yet they still knew that the Earth was actually moving. They've never even seen a picture of the Earth from outer space, like we have. But how did they know?

It's because they thought about it. They calculated it in their own heads, that the Earth must be going around the Sun. It was entirely their rationalism that correctly concluded the Earth must be going around the Sun, and not the other way around. Their observations had nothing to with it, in fact their observations were telling them otherwise (of course you need some observations, but they were not "derived" from observations).

None of this was "derived" from observations. The whole point of observations is to test your theory.

@Soupman

Rationalisation isn't restricted to justifying "behaviour" but generally making sense of a premise - although I do see how rationalism can be a complementary perspective of the general idea.

Constructivism is essentially another way of reiterating the point that both empiricism and rationalisation (or rationalism) - the application of reason onto the empirical data, are important.

Dude you have a serious blindspot that's making it impossible for you to analyse the axioms of your worldview, nevermind applying the most rudimentary logical consistency verification of the premise you need others to believe.

To claim falsification is not routed empiricism (with rationalism) is cookie to say the least. In particular the empiricism in falsification requires a comprehensive procurement of all relevant observations, relevant data (not just supportive observation), so that the rationale procured can be the most logical; with Popper actually saying consistency of inferred premises is so rudimentary, without it there's no falsification to speak of.

Do you not see your claim as crack pipe derived when you say - they figured out the earth was going around the sun simply by establishing out of nowhere a premise and axioms that determines it? Some one could rationally establish axioms and a premise that Zeus created the world all in their mind and then proceeded to prove this via deduction from the established premises (none of which routed in empiricism) but are logically correct because of consistency in such derived premise. To quote you - that's a pretty asinine view of modern science.

Having an epistemological culture neither routed in empiricism or rationalisation, is the reason why scientific knowledge was much slower before the last 300 years - negating the overall heritage of the wisdom of previous civilisations.

Falsification is not empiricism. You are still assuming many things about how Newton came up with his theory. You are jumping to conclusions because you have assumptions that science is about "empiricism". Yes, empiricism and inductivism were once useful in rejecting the authority of religion, etc, but Bacon was also wrong and Hume correctly pointed out that inductivism was an impossibility.

The point is that you do not... "derive" anything from observations. If you derive something from observations, then what?

I'm not saying that this is an easy thing to understand. It took me a lot of thinking to finally understand what this all means, and why inductivism is simply logically impossible. Science is after all, supremely counter-intuitive, and defies common-sense view.