It is at the least a self truism that by definition an excess of most anything is not optimal. Epistemologically there is an element of “faith” to anything since the fundamentals of existence or reality cannot be proven- epistemology is itself essentially a search for understanding of the minds connection to reality, and we cannot prove either thing exists- so at some point we have to make faith based judgments or assumptions such as that we must exist because we think we exist. Of course one can program a machine to “think” it is human, Apple computers contain a file that identifies the machine- a “2012 Mac Pro” for example- one can edit this file and make the machine believe it is another year or model- the the observer it does not change the existence of the physical machine or it’s aspects.
The limits of the scientific method are in essence cognition. So at some point an assumption must be made that cannot be proven- in fact, science is not terribly involved in proving anything. Science observed and records what happens. It is a statistical probability- we can say “it is most likely that…” or “we observe that” but we can’t actually even say gravity costs or that it “pull things toward moe massive things” or anything of the sort. We observe that. That which is known, that which we know we do not know, that which we do not know we do not know. In that sense, statistics themselves are even faith based- we have observed so many times that there is a correlation between observing the same result from the same inputs so many times to predicting the results for a given set of inputs and conditions, and thusly statistics is only validated by use of statistics, or a sort of faith.
When it comes to science and quantification- humans are flawed and lack an omnipotent and all knowing position as observers so our observations are flawed. Casual observation can often reach the same conclusion as scientific methods or measurements. The human brain appears to decent at finding patterns. We do t actually need statistics or science to come to the conclusion that if a new alien fruit is discovered and everyone who eats the fruit dies, that if you eat the fruit you’ll probably die. It’s intuitive. Scientific quantification and organization creates a framework by which we can analyze problems in a consistent manner allowing for collaboration, verification, and continuation off of past work. It isn’t a mystical system or perfect by any means. A standard is just that- a standard. Standards exist to assist in communication and sharing of ideas, verification, and convenience or organization. Complex problems generally exceed the ability of the human brain to track and organize.
So I mean basically this doesn’t really say anything that isn’t sort of inherent to the facts of the matter. I suppose it is a bit like a reminder- like “if you might yourself on fire you will be on fire….” It’s fairly obvious but a surprising number of people light themselves on fire still.
Of course the part that is the big catch even if we excuse it as a warning… is…. Define “excessive” and what criteria and system one would use to quantify or check for excessive faith in science. That’s highly subjective. So there really isn’t any substance to this beyond perhaps reminding people that foolishness results in you being foolish. Since most people don’t consider themselves fools even when perhaps objectively so- there isn’t really an audience for this warning because the people who need it aren’t likely to believe it applies to them and the people who believe it applies to others at themselves be fools and thusly unreliable in their diagnosis.
Of course the part that is the big catch even if we excuse it as a warning… is…. Define “excessive” and what criteria and system one would use to quantify or check for excessive faith in science. That’s highly subjective. So there really isn’t any substance to this beyond perhaps reminding people that foolishness results in you being foolish. Since most people don’t consider themselves fools even when perhaps objectively so- there isn’t really an audience for this warning because the people who need it aren’t likely to believe it applies to them and the people who believe it applies to others at themselves be fools and thusly unreliable in their diagnosis.