Epistemology Debates

This is pure skepticism. Your position is: "We don't know anything about the real world."That is absolute hokum. The Earth orbits the Sun, living things need fuel to survive, two units combined with two units sums to four units. I could go on and on.You need good epistemology to explain why this is, since while it's common sense, I agree that common sense is not sufficient when we're talking about philosophy. Clearly you have not discovered good epistemology.

Only according to some epistemologies.

what??epistemology is a category set of theories of knowledge, e.g. husserl, it doesn't describe any specific bias for specific/observed data??your sentences parse grammatically but afaict carry no meaningful semantic informationtl;dr: speak more plainly

epistomological nihilism is not the way forward

I tried explained you it is about epistemology, instead.

Depends on your epistemology, I guess.

You're view is more inline with the philosophy of science which holds nothing an ever be justified.https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Karl_Popperread The problem of induction and demarcation: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Fal

The person above is correct; you are having an epistemological debate, whether you realize it or not. What you're writing shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic.

It's not silly, it's a description of reality. Epistemology is concerned with what can be known, not with what assumptions are practical for decision-making. Just because something has happened the same way a hundred billion times in the past, that's no iron guarantee it will in future, it just means its incredibly probable. Understanding this means understanding reality more clearly.

the problem is epistemology, not aesthetics. why are you comfortable believing in things that are nonfalsifiable? that you find them comforting is not much of an argument.