Strange

I congratulate you for thinking in terms of testing. Maybe a question to ask before that one is: Does the universe have a purpose? (We know it has porpoises. I'm less sure about purposes.)

This is an example of non-Euclidean geometry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry

Here is a good definition of types of knowledge from the Oxford Companion to Philosophy entry on "Philosophy and Science":

So the computer you are using doesn't exist. Interesting. Why are you posting on a science forum when you are so anti-science. And you think science is fictitious. Isn't it a bit of a waste of your time?

You seem to be mixing up how science is done with what the public think of it (or are told about it). These are not the same thing. The majority view in science may be what gets communicated to the public (although minority, fringe and more speculative ideas are probably more popular). But science is not driven by or controlled by a majority view. It wouldn't have made the progress it has, if that were the case.

That doesn't seem to have anything to do with science.

I don't think atoms are largely empty space. They are full of "electron" (i.e. electron orbitals). This can be seen in experiments that visualise atoms and molecules.

Legal decisions have little or nothing to do with science. They may, occasionally, use science to come up with a law or to assista court decision. But equally often they ignore the science for reasons of policy, public opinion, religion, or whatever. Philosophy, of course, has an important role to play in decisions about the sort of topics you mention (but I suspect those are too specific to discuss in this thread). "Murder" is not a scientific concept. So, no. But, of course, science can tell you when and whether a developing organism has various capabilities. Society can then use that information to decide what to do. Some societies think it is OK to inflict pain or to kill their citizens (e.g. the USA has capital punishment). But that has nothing to do with science. Only one of them. And that was Princeton University Press, which is not the same as Princeton University. That quotation came from a letter written by Einstein himself. The book was edited by friends and colleagues of Einstein. Don't you think they would have noticed if the publisher had changed the content? It sounds like you are inventing a conspiracy because you don't like the truth.

No, that is not how science works. You have it completely backwards. If the majority agree it is because they find the evidence convincing. There are times when the majority don't agree and don't hold sway.

That sounds like how science works. I still don't see where the problem is. (Apart from the fact you seem to want to be able to do the random dream stuff without doing the actual testing bit.) You probably learn a lot of reusable concepts and transferable skills (such as the importance of specifying things up front, spending more on design than implementation, how to test things, etc). Many of these skills are valid across many disciplines. When I first started programming, my Dad (who was an artist) borrowed one of my books on computer programming and brought it back a few days later and said, "so its all about design, then". And, of course, he was absolutely right.

That has already been said (including in the other thread). Which is part of the reason why the Bibles statement that pi=3 is especially nonsensical. There was better information available. (I suppose that story could be even older than Babylonian mathematics.)

Your problem seems to have been caused by thinking about another problem while driving. Maybe the answer is that people (artists, scientists or drivers) should just get on with their work, rather than worrying about non-existent dichotomies. BTW, as well as scientists being creative, the best artists are also very rigorous and methodical in their work.

I didn't say anything about "styles of thinking". (Although I am sceptical that such things exist, I haven't seen any research one way or the other.) As scientists are (have to be) creative, this dichotomy obviously doesn't exist. Which is one reason I am sceptical about this division. I think it is purely invented, based on false stereotypes. I still have no idea what you think the problem is. That scientists are not creative? Obviously not true. So where is the problem?

The source of those quotes was Einstein. And show he was not a Christian. If anything, he was a non-religious Jew. And how does your personal opinion of Princeton affect their credibility?

As far as as we can tell (scientifically) the mind is a result of the brain's activity.

So, not a hexagon.

What scheme?

It may be a special case, but it isn't a circle or "round".

You are describing a hexagon, not a circle.

The left-brain, right-brain thing is complete nonsense. https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/left-brain-right-brain-myth/ So it seems you are using a popular myth about the nature of artists and scientists to contradict research. Scientists are - have to be - very creative and imaginative. So any dichotomy only exists in your stereotypes. Not in reality.

Interesting paper. It confirms the well known fact that good scientists are highly creative people. Creativity is an essential component of each of the steps above. Err.... so where is the problem?

I think it is slightly subtler than that (but it is many years since I worked on GPS systems). When the GPS receiver finds a first satellite (which can take quite a while because it has to scan a wide range of frequencies looking for possible signals), the first thing it does is download the data (almanac?) with information about the current positions of all the satellites. It can then use this to find other satellites that should be visible much more quickly (because it knows their relative speeds and can do a rough compensation for Doppler effects). The satellites need to be updated regularly with the positions (and functional status) of all the other satellites in the network. With the high orbits, this doesn't have to be done very often. If they were orbiting every three hours, they would be updating almost constantly. And the receiver would struggle to track satellites as they flew past and would be constantly having to look for new ones (it needs a minimum of four to calculate location, more is better, but some will be blocked by buildings, etc).

You can never calculate anything with perfect accuracy. But you can calculate it to whatever level of accuracy you need. The expanding universe only affects things that are so far away that their gravity is completely insignificant on Earth.

You have a totally extraordinary ability to miss the point. It is amazing. If there were Olympics in missing the point, you would get Gold.

We know what logic is. Again, what is wrong with the definitions you have been given?