I need a wise man

Besides the obvious flaw that something is true just because it is based off of something that is known to be true?  I'm busy studying for finals so I can't really think of an example but you should just talk about how one thing being true does not automatically make everything derived from it true as well.  I hope that makes sense, I'm tired and my brain hurts.

You could use Descartes as an example to refute those claims - he used systematic doubt to come to the conclusion that the only true knowledge we have is that we exist in some manner: "cogito ergo sum." Google "epistemology" and look for arguments with what you find there - you can use paradigms as examples (really over-used example but look for something along the lines of Galileo) or you could go as far as claiming that our senses are fallible so any knowledge we obtain through our senses is fallible too.

You could argue it that for Aristotle's philosophy to be true, the science that everything is based on has to be true.

Basically you are saying he said that if we know science to be 100% true, everything that is based on that and follows that path of science is 100% true.

However this is refuted by the fact that we have learned that Science is NOT 100% true, for anything.  Which is why we are trying to find a "Unifying Theory of Physics".  For example, one could argue that in the Middle Ages they based all biology on the "5 humors" and they were "proven by science to be 100% true".  But then new science came out which disproved that, and so on and so forth.

Or you could look at Newtonian Physics.  We thought them to be 100% true for everything, but then Quantum Physics came along and we learned that the science we used for everything is based on a science that disproves what we already knew.

So basically, if we claim that Science is countable and 100% true, and if everything is 100% true from that singular point forward, how do we ACTUALLY know that the original "Science" is true?  It is impossible for us to know that because we can't look at it from every angle since we are limited by our frame of reference.  If anything we know the initial theories that we base all of our research on are NOT true and we are continually trying to find that singular point to base all of our other science off of.

science is us learning about the environment we live in, and we dont know everything just yet, so we do not have definite answers

Science is based on observation and assumption. Let's say we walk past something and see it and touch it. We do it a hundred times. How do we know it's still there when we're not there to see it and touch it? How do we know it's still there when we turn around? We assume it is, because we always see it when we ARE looking. But what about when we aren't?

Secondly, you could argue that science is simply trying to get observations - the real "facts" - if you like, to cohere. It is an interpretation of occurrences. The only thing that is objective in science is the raw data. The theories and theorums - that's all subjective. You could give 10 different people the same data, and they could all come up with different theories.

David Hume argued that we must draw our conclusions merely from the known phenomena, which meant that we must abandon every arbitrary supposition or conjecture. There could be no knowledge except in relation to the physical - and for instance, assuming God is metaphysical, it would be impossible for us to "prove" that God exists via the empirical method. Therefore, we only try to understand what we can empirically test, and our theories revolve around that. And if there are metaphysical beings, then a lot of our theories could be wrong because science assumes that everything can be explained physically/biologically/chemically, and completely excludes metaphysical beings.

Ok, fuck, I'm giving myself a headache here, ju8st talk about empiricism.