Merged Is Scientism Really Justified?

[Axxman300]

But I'm asking a slightly different epistemological question: is objective, scientifically testable evidence the only possible basis for rational justification?
For example, are logical, mathematical, philosophical, or first-person forms of evidence necessarily incapable of providing rational justification, simply because they aren't scientifically testable?

Your problem here is your examples do not hold equal value. Mathematics IS testable. The equation either adds up or it does not. Mathematics is often used to validate science. Logic and philosophy are usually drawn from the same intellectual well. Both are flexible as new information or perspectives are added.

First-Person will always be subjective, and prone to the many inaccuracies of individual perception.

I'm interested in cases such as subjective conscious experience, mathematical truths, logical truths, moral claims, and metaphysical claims about the nature of reality. My question is not whether these are true, but whether scientific evidence is necessarily the only kind of evidence that can rationally justify beliefs about them.

In my experience if your beliefs are not backed up by science you're a fool.

We have a conspiracy theory board where people who think they're being logical embrace questionable claims that at some point melt in the face of science. Morality changes with the wind these days.

As an old ghost hunter, metaphysical claims are my department, and they all fall apart when basic science is applied. If you wish to ignore science I guess that's your right, but if you're going to charge people for faith healing, or to purge a home of a demon then science will be used to beat you senseless.

For example, we don't establish mathematical truths through experiments in the same way we establish empirical claims.

Please give us a solid example one of these mathematical truths.

There is a reason they have spotters at the blackjack tables in every casino. There is a reason why you never see contests wherein people have to guess how many jellybeans are in a sealed container any more. The reason is mathematics.

Likewise, we have direct access to our own subjective experiences, but other people cannot independently observe those experiences in the same way they can observe a physical object. So I'm asking whether "not scientifically testable" necessarily entails "mere fantasy," or whether there are other standards of rational justification depending on the type of claim.

Again, it would be nice if you could be specific about the type pf subjective claim.

I'm not necessarily talking about supernatural entities

You sure about thaf?