When I first began reading your post, I was dismayed thinking that we were retrogressing. After reading it more carefully and thinking about it, though, I am encouraged that we may be getting somewhere. Your title, "Sense Impressions, Beliefs, Formal Systems, Then Conceptualize" may contain the key.
>>>Humans experience the world via their sense impressions, and from those sense impressions we define, infer, try to make sense of, and all manner of reasoning attempts of those sense impressions.>>I agree, if we extend our basic beliefs to cover more than is necessary to construct mathematics or science, then we have erred.>The generally accepted position of both math and science is to keep our axioms to the bare essentials of what is self-evident.>However, this is not to say that we should seriously question all basic beliefs as this would lead to complete skepticism.>I guess you'll have to carry the torch and show me that there are any significant issues here. So far, they have eluded me.>P: Dick has no interest in it at all in the context of discussing the ideas in his paper. H. It is disappointing to hear that Dick approaches such philosophical issues with almost contempt for the very discipline that he wishes to engage in discussion> However, my only case against that is to ask why no physics beyond 1955(?) was deduced from his paper. Again, I don't know the answer to it, but the methodology fully demonstrates by its inability to predict that it is not currently a useful tool for science.