Isn't this like saying if X is an axiom and you can prove Y via X, you shouldn't trust Y is true because you can't prove X is true?
What systems for determining the truth exist that aren't built on top of some fundamental axioms?
What systems for determining the truth exist that aren't built on top of some fundamental axioms?
my point is that "we define science as empirical falsificationism" is itself nonscientific by its own definition, and that that's OK, still capable of being true, and is a handy way to get stuff done.