I am (X), & it does not matter at all.

I see it happen all the time. A person is called something "bad" and this shuts down the conversation, it makes them an "other" it marks them, stains them. Yet I wonder, why does anyone care about words? What happened to seeing that an ad hominem is illogical?

So, screw it. I'll be all the things. I'll simply declare I am (X), then I shall ask, "What is your argument?"

I'm a racist. I'm a homophobe. I'm a islamphobe, I'm a misogynist. I'm a misandrist. I'm a troll. I'm a neckbeard. I'm a MGOTOW. I'm a incel. I'm a simp. I'm a slob. I'm retarded. I'm an idiot. I'm evil. I'm sick. I'm dumb. I'm stupid. I'm far right. I'm far left. I'm a Nazi. I'm a terrorist. I'm religious. I'm spiritual. I'm a new ager. I'm an atheist. I'm a skeptic. I'm agnostic. I'm anti semitic. I'm in. I'm out. I'm up. I'm down. I'm left, right, forwards, backwards. I'm a sloth. I'm lazy. I'm a workaholic. I'm neurotic. I'm a pencil pusher. I'm a drug dealer. I'm a drug addict. I am everything that is good, bad, & other in the whole God Damned universe.

....

So,

WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT?

Everything can be known via science. Everything.

A common complaint about "scientism"/"naturalism"/"materialism" is that these things assume the natural, that the first is to narrow, that only using science can not derive truths, the statement, "Everything that is known is known via science" someone might say, is itself a non-scientific statement.

However, I think this is a narrow view of what science is. Its a broad system, that includes maths, logic, testing, verification, and many processes made to try to eliminate personal bias. Its a way to dig at the world, to be critical of it, to find what it really is, not what we wish it to be.

History, some say is not science, but I beg to differ. We have forensic science, a study of the past. We have archaeology, a study of the past. Both require data collection, testing, verification and so on.
In fact, when doing history we must apply the ideas of science to it, if we read in some writing that something beyond what we know can be done now was done, we categorize that as myth, a person flying around like Superman is myth, because we have no reason to think that is even possible, then or now. Some object that this is an assumption, well - how could someone do something in the past that is not possible now? They then must assume that magic or something else allowed that person to fly, the assumption that no, its not possible is what can be observed to be, whereas the other one can not. Simply put, those who want to believe that there myth is true, will make all sorts of excuses to justify it. The one who does science only needs to show the data, the tests, the process, the results. Reality does not require back flips to prove, it does not require dodging, nor does it require excuses, its there, it can be known, though science.

Logic as well, is I think, a sub-set of science, it has a robust yet changing system, its a structured format. It can be used as a short cut, however its limited, one must still check with reality to see if the premises are true, thus one must consult science to discover if it is in fact true.

So it is my contention that everything is known or can be known via science.

Update, my views on this have been challenged, and I think that, yes this is incorrect on technical linguistic norms. I do think that we could view the above things in the category of science, although it currently is not. But, things change. Would it be useful to change to my idea? Hmm, I do not know.