It's clear but not valid. The parallel does not add to the discussion in the sense that with the correct equipment and training I can go and redo any experiment and see if I get the same result as all the other people who have done it and draw my own conclusions therefrom. That's neither belief (in the sense of taking it on faith) nor myth.
This seems to me an invalid argument because it would be impracticable--though very enlightening and fruitful, I presume--for you, individually, to redo all those experiments. That doesn't nullify the fact that you likely do not undertake such an endeavor, apart from the pragmatic difficulties, because a system of institutional trust is in play. Such trust formerly was thought of under the aegis of faith, namely faith that the religious institution in which one was enrolled was trusted as a source of right teaching and thought. Perhaps it's called something different now, but its character is quite similar. By narrowing focus to a fixation on just certain procedural details, such as many speaking on behalf of the natural sciences these days do, cultural, institutional, ideological, and philosophical factors can be excluded. For some, this provides a satisfying accounting of the modern enterprise of science. For others, it will seem shallow and insufficient.
As far as empiricism itself is concerned I don't agree. There is no denying the result of an observation or experiment. It's fact. You look at the spectrum of the light from a star and it tells you what elements are present in that star. That's not philosophy or anti-religion; it's just a fact. I have already explained in this thread the purpose to which empirical observation is put so I'm not repeating myself but it has nothing to do with being anti religion or pro philosophy. If you want to suggest that there is a different model for scientific inquiry that would be equally successful, then I can't wait for your best selling book to come out and explain it. I don't think such a thing exists but you're implying that's because I've closed my mind to other approaches. This is just silly. This is the scientific method: you hypothesize, the Earth is round(-ish), you observe, say by going around it, you observe that other objects in space above a certain size are also round and smaller bodies have random shapes; you draw the conclusion that the reason is that there is sufficient gravity to cause the Earth to assume the shape with the least surface area (extremely simplified but you get the idea). Where is the philosophy? Where is the issue with the scientific method?
I'm not sure what you're not agreeing with. If it's the impact of the empirical school of philosophers on modern science, you'd need to make a case for that if you're looking for some degree of assent from me. If you stick to natural sciences circles you may be able to get away with ignoring or minimizing that impact. But, with that sort of attitude, I would avoid trying to move in philosophical or other humanities circles if I were you. (To state what may be obvious to some, the original form of empiricism dictated that only phenomena mediated through the five senses can result in valid knowledge.)
The discussion thus gets back to the earlier point about conducting experiments in order to prove to oneself the verity of various scientific theories. The fact of the matter is that conducting many, many such experiments is now far beyond the means of any but the most wealthy of research institutions. You seem to be hearkening back to the day of the 18th century gentleman scientist who conducted experiments in his liesure in his personal lab. If all experiments related to current scientific knowledge were testable by this means then, yes, perhaps most any everyday joe could convince himself of their verity. But testing many of the current scientific notions is so far beyond the reach of the average person there is no way he could, through experience mediated through his five senses, assent to them. If empiricism is at stake here, it's a very rarefied form of empiricism--one in which yoou trust, not what is mediated through your five senses, but what is mediated through the senses of some authoritative figure and, usually, the apparatus he/she uses to augment his/her senses.
The color spectrum emitted by burning elements is an armchair experiment accessible to many, though acquiring and operating a telescope is something of which only a small minority would ever be capable. An even smaller segment of that minority would be capable of viewing, and even less of analyzing, the spectrum of light the sighted star emits.
Take quantum mechanics as a better example. Discussions of quantum mechanics are typically prefaced with warnings about how weird and contradictory things seem at the quantum level. In other words, we are dealing with a field of knowledge that, not only is impossible for our five senses to apprehend, but that contradicts nearly everything we experience in our normal day to day world as mediated through our senses. There is nothing empirical, in the everyday-joe sense in which that philosophy was originally formulated, here. Same goes for Hubble space telescope photography and associated findings, radio astronomy and its findings, the field of genetics and its findings, and so on. We are no longer in the realm of the empirical here: only with the use of very expensive and highly specialized equipment, and years of requisite training, could any of us ever hope to even come close to assenting to the findings of modern science in any proximately empirical way.
If by "success" you mean something that provides the driving engine for societal progress, look in any history book. All past societies had technical entities that generated propserity and advanced civilization. Nothing needs to be written. Unless you mean to say that modernity somehow is uniquely better at it. In which case, I'd ask you to provide the criteria on which you base that judgment. I mean, assuming we will be addressing the question rationally and not, in a sort of knee-jerk way, proclaiming that modernity has so far outstripped past accomplishments that it is beyond comparison. In which case, being a historian, I would invite you to consider the fact that all past cultures have held similar views of themselves and their accomplishments. (I'm not sure what you mean by "Issue with the scientific method": I don't recall having raised such an issue).
Anyway, it seems pretty clear we've been discussing different things since my purpose ITT was to show the OP to be nonsensical and I believe I have done that. I have conceded there is a place for philosophy but it is not the same as science, as the OP attempted to assert. End of story.
Fair enough. If you ever want a more free-form and wide-ranging discussion of these matters, I'm usually game. Whether I'll be able to again find time for it is another issue
