Is science the only way to gain knowledge?

[Avatar4321]

Making observations is not flaming; it is making observations.

Making observation isnt necessarily science either.

 

[JBeukema]

dishonest people like you project this lie unto other persons as a strawman

.

 

[editec]

Certainly science is but one tool for understanding the world, and not a very good one for understanding many aspects of life.

What did Newton say after reinvesting into the South Pacific Trading company bublble which popped leaving his broke

Something along the lines of:

"I can calculate the movement of the stars, but not the madness of men".

The social sciences exist because understanding man is even more difficult than understanding the mechanics of the universe

Social science ... one of my many talents and areas of study.

The more you understand of humanity, the more you realize that we really haven't evolved much beyond the ape mentality. Humans will still beat dead horses and pound their fists even when they are wrong ... and are very easily enraged beyond rational thought. Especially those without any spirituality or those with too much. You can easily spot the unbalanced humans, they can be enraged the easiest ... just like apes.

I resemble that remark.

Go ahead throw a banana at me, I dare ya'!

 

[Diuretic]

.....

Social science ... one of my many talents and areas of study.

The more you understand of humanity, the more you realize that we really haven't evolved much beyond the ape mentality. Humans will still beat dead horses and pound their fists even when they are wrong ... and are very easily enraged beyond rational thought. Especially those without any spirituality or those with too much. You can easily spot the unbalanced humans, they can be enraged the easiest ... just like apes.

I remember, some years ago, reading where animals, in experimental situations, are quite happy to cut their losses but humans in similar situations will just keep going on and on and on without realising that whatever they're doing is pointless. Sometimes we can learn a lot from other species.

 

[Diuretic]

Actually, there's a flaw in your thinking, it's not a bad one because our resident "wisdom is evil and only information is important" moron thinks the same way. Science isn't actually what we use, your very last statement is actually more accurate, science is a method, not a source or result. The only way to advance anything is through these steps:

1. Dream of something new.

2. Use science to better understand it.

3. Dream of a use for it.

Notice, dreaming is more important than the science. Knowledge is a byproduct of these three steps.

Actually, that is exactly my point. Science is a method. One of several methods to gain knowledge. To pretend that science is the only way to can know anything is perposterous because we know many things without using the scientific method.

The scientific method is a good way of making sure we really know what we think we know.

 

[eagleseven]

Actually, there's a flaw in your thinking, it's not a bad one because our resident "wisdom is evil and only information is important" moron thinks the same way. Science isn't actually what we use, your very last statement is actually more accurate, science is a method, not a source or result. The only way to advance anything is through these steps:

1. Dream of something new.

2. Use science to better understand it.

3. Dream of a use for it.

Notice, dreaming is more important than the science. Knowledge is a byproduct of these three steps.

Actually, that is exactly my point. Science is a method. One of several methods to gain knowledge. To pretend that science is the only way to can know anything is perposterous because we know many things without using the scientific method.

There is a significant difference between the scientific method and most other forms of knowledge aquisition.

Knowledge learned via the scientific method is easily and directly transferable to others. A discovery made in India can be easily transfered around the world, thanks to to the foundation in the scientific method.

Other older forms of knowledge acquisition are far less liquid, and many are limited to one individual. This is why human technological development was significantly slower before the advent of the scientific method.

Now, you are right, there are topics that science has a difficult time addressing. Those very same topics, however, are limited to either individuals or small groups of individuals, and so their individual discovery is of limited use to the human race.

Discoveries you make regarding your relationship with God/Gods, others, and yourself, while important, die shortly after your death. Discoveries you make via the scientific method will outlive you, aiding humankind's struggle against the abyss for decades or centuries to come, at least in a small way.

 

[Diuretic]

One of the good things about the scientific method is the ability to replicate the study to see if you get the same results. Another good thing about it is that humans don't have to keep reinventing the wheel, we can invent a better one.

Among the other methods of gaining knowledge is hermeneutics.

 

[mattskramer]

In other threads this issue seems to be coming up. I have always argued that there are more ways to know things than simply the scientific method. I've cited revelation, experience, faith, etc.

Yet a number of people seem to think unless it's scientifically proven you can't know something. My opinion, whatever it's worth, is that it makes no sense to limit what you can know to the scientific method when most of the important things in life arent knowable by science.

Can science prove if you love your spouse? Your family? Of course not.

Do you not love them because science can't prove it?

Can science prove someone guilty in a court of law? Sometimes, sometimes not. Are there other ways to do so? Of course.

Why should we limit what we can learn to what science can prove? Why what we know be determined by whether someone in a lab can prove it to someone else?

This is why science can never disprove faith. Because some knowledge exists outside the scope of the scientific method.

Yes. Anything short of what is found by science is left to imagination and speculation until it is proven to exist otherwise. Anything that is not detected via our 5 senses (or with the aid of machines to detect things beyond what our human senses alone can detect) must remain in the realm of imagination and speculation. It was thought that things smaller than the atom do not exist – until we created tools powerful enough for us to split atoms and to see things smaller than the atom.

On a side note: At the same time, one can’t prove that things that we have not detected do not exist. I doubt that anyone has seen a 3-footed elephant having 2 trunks and webbed feet living in the ocean depths. Yet, that does not mean that such a creature does not exist. Yet, since it is logically impossible to prove the inexistence of something, it falls to the responsibility of those that claim that something exists to prove that it does so. Read about the fallacy of appealing from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps we will invent a device that can show us all places on the known universe instantaneously and let us know that such a creature exists where we have never searched. There are some amazing creatures that live deep in the Mariana Trench - the deepest part of the world's oceans – which I doubt that we have ever thought of before.

Viperfish4578.jpg (image)

Anyway, with respect to your examples, love is simply a conditioned bio-chemical phenomenon. Look it up in Wikipedia under "Love (scientific_views)".

We can’t prove with 100 percent certainty that we convict the guilty person every time that there is a criminal case. Yet, particularly with advances in forensic science, the odds of convicting the right person grow higher with each passing year. Still, for the sake of trying to protect citizens and punish those who likely committed crimes, we should have a legal/justice system (as imperfect as it may be). This in no way proves that that science is not the only way to gain knowledge. We simply convict people without our having absolute knowledge – and many innocent people do get convicted as a result.

The Innocence Project - Home

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes. Anything short of what is found by science is left to imagination and speculation until it is proven to exist otherwise. Anything that is not detected via our 5 senses (or with the aid of machines to detect things beyond what our human senses alone can detect) must remain in the realm of imagination and speculation. It was thought that things smaller than the atom do not exist – until we created tools powerful enough for us to split atoms and to see things smaller than the atom.

I've heard the voice of the Lord. I've felt His power. Yet, I am supposed to continue questioning because someone else hasn't? Especially when I have explained multiple times the way they can do the same thing I have and they are unwilling to experiment on the Word?

Is it speculation after you experience it? Is it science? No. but its personal eye witness experience that can be shared and believed or disbelieved. If I see so and so rob a bank, but science can't prove he did it, am I any less wrong, even if no one believes me? Am I suddenly imagining things? Do I know the truth any less?

 

[Avatar4321]

There is a significant difference between the scientific method and most other forms of knowledge aquisition.

Knowledge learned via the scientific method is easily and directly transferable to others. A discovery made in India can be easily transfered around the world, thanks to to the foundation in the scientific method.

Other older forms of knowledge acquisition are far less liquid, and many are limited to one individual. This is why human technological development was significantly slower before the advent of the scientific method.

Now, you are right, there are topics that science has a difficult time addressing. Those very same topics, however, are limited to either individuals or small groups of individuals, and so their individual discovery is of limited use to the human race.

Discoveries you make regarding your relationship with God/Gods, others, and yourself, while important, die shortly after your death. Discoveries you make via the scientific method will outlive you, aiding humankind's struggle against the abyss for decades or centuries to come, at least in a small way.

Very well articulated point.

I think i differ on one instance. I dont think knowledge learned through revelation is limited to one individual. I think everyone can recieve that same knowledge. I think the main limitation is that few people bother to try the experiment.

With scientific knowledge, we trust the method so much that few people repeat the experiments but accept it simply because someone is an authority in that field. The scientific method might be easier to conduct, but I dont think that means methods to recieve revelation arent just as valid. They just are rarely used.

 

[mattskramer]

Yes. Anything short of what is found by science is left to imagination and speculation until it is proven to exist otherwise. Anything that is not detected via our 5 senses (or with the aid of machines to detect things beyond what our human senses alone can detect) must remain in the realm of imagination and speculation. It was thought that things smaller than the atom do not exist – until we created tools powerful enough for us to split atoms and to see things smaller than the atom.

I've heard the voice of the Lord. I've felt His power. Yet, I am supposed to continue questioning because someone else hasn't? Especially when I have explained multiple times the way they can do the same thing I have and they are unwilling to experiment on the Word?

Is it speculation after you experience it? Is it science? No. but its personal eye witness experience that can be shared and believed or disbelieved. If I see so and so rob a bank, but science can't prove he did it, am I any less wrong, even if no one believes me? Am I suddenly imagining things? Do I know the truth any less?

In many court cases, more than one witness or piece of physical evidence is needed in order to convict a criminal. Even the Constitution calls for at least two witnesses in cases of treason. A crime’s witness should be subjected to scrutiny. She should be investigated to find out if she is a credible witness, has ulterior motives, or has a conflict of interest. Even eye-witness testimony has convicted innocent people. Read about eyewitness misidentification:

The Innocence Project - Understand the Causes: Eyewitness Misidentification

“Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.

While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated.”

No offence but a witness’s experience may be due to bio-chemical manifestations or psychiatric/psychological phenomena. Some people in asylums claim to be Jesus or claim that aliens are sending messages to them. It may be due to wishful thinking and an overwhelming desire for it to be real. It may be due to a strong sense of contentment when things such as the story of Christ are contemplated. This does not mean that it is real.

 

[Gurdari]

In other threads this issue seems to be coming up. I have always argued that there are more ways to know things than simply the scientific method. I've cited revelation, experience, faith, etc.

Yet a number of people seem to think unless it's scientifically proven you can't know something. My opinion, whatever it's worth, is that it makes no sense to limit what you can know to the scientific method when most of the important things in life arent knowable by science.

Can science prove if you love your spouse? Your family? Of course not.

Do you not love them because science can't prove it?

Can science prove someone guilty in a court of law? Sometimes, sometimes not. Are there other ways to do so? Of course.

Why should we limit what we can learn to what science can prove? Why what we know be determined by whether someone in a lab can prove it to someone else?

This is why science can never disprove faith. Because some knowledge exists outside the scope of the scientific method.

Are you serious? The scientific method is not about 'proof in a lab' it is a manner of collecting/analyzing data - which often leads to no 'proof' of any kind. It is basically the way all of us think about most new things we encounter - and how we look at claims others make. Logic, evidence, etc. So, when I say that I built a spaceship out of cheese - and have successfully tested it in trips to Mars, you do NOT automatically believe me (I hope). You enquire as to the specifics and build a framework with which you make a judgement - one that is open to improvement should new evidence come to light.

(e.g. you discover that NASA does in fact have a resilient cheese-based polymer capable of light-weight engine construction and faster than light travel... etc.).


As for your examples - love specifically - you need just decide your measurment utility. If you want to use consistent love-related activities, then perhaps you could prove you love your family using the scientific method. If we have no such methodology - as a scientist, you say we cannot proceed using our current methods, equipment, etc.

The scientific method is just the WAY you go about learning and understanding.

 

[Ravi]

To pretend that science is the only way to can know anything is perposterous because we know many things without using the scientific method.

Who pretends this? I've never heard anyone make such a claim.

Science is basically attempting to understand cause and effect.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Certainly science is but one tool for understanding the world, and not a very good one for understanding many aspects of life.

What did Newton say after reinvesting into the South Sea TradCompany bubble which popped?

Something along the lines of:

"I can calculate the movement of the stars, but not the madness of men".​

The social sciences exists because understanding men and mankind is even more difficult than understanding the mechanics of the universe.

If you want to understand the plumbing of the universe, study science.

If you want to understand people and society, study history and literature.

And anthropology, psychology, and biology.

 

[JBeukema]

And anthropology, psychology, and biology.

all sciences

biology is a natural science, as are many aspects of anthropology

CMfail

 

[editec]

Certainly science is but one tool for understanding the world, and not a very good one for understanding many aspects of life.

What did Newton say after reinvesting into the South Sea TradCompany bubble which popped?

Something along the lines of:

"I can calculate the movement of the stars, but not the madness of men".​

The social sciences exists because understanding men and mankind is even more difficult than understanding the mechanics of the universe.

If you want to understand the plumbing of the universe, study science.

If you want to understand people and society, study history and literature.

And anthropology, psychology, and biology.

Quite right.

I really should have said study the humanities and social sciences

 

[amrchaos]

In other threads this issue seems to be coming up. I have always argued that there are more ways to know things than simply the scientific method. I've cited revelation, experience, faith, etc.

Yet a number of people seem to think unless it's scientifically proven you can't know something. My opinion, whatever it's worth, is that it makes no sense to limit what you can know to the scientific method when most of the important things in life arent knowable by science.

Can science prove if you love your spouse? Your family? Of course not.

Do you not love them because science can't prove it?

Can science prove someone guilty in a court of law? Sometimes, sometimes not. Are there other ways to do so? Of course.

Why should we limit what we can learn to what science can prove? Why what we know be determined by whether someone in a lab can prove it to someone else?

This is why science can never disprove faith. Because some knowledge exists outside the scope of the scientific method.

There is arises inefficiency in waiting for a scientific proof for something. Also, what about the authority that conducted the experiment, can you take their word at face value, or must you run the tests yourself??

Finally, there is something not quite "kosher" about the natural sciences and empirical evidence. It tends to suggests that all the information of the observed is known, yet even the applied scientists will find and address errors in their tests and try to suggest mistakes on their part. Is it really mistakes on their part? Or could it indicate something that, as of present, unknown to the scientists and may need further invesitgation?

Normally, if the 'error' keep arising after repeated tests, some scientist will ask "Why the hell this keeps happening?". Thus science shows its flexibility to acquire what we do not know by encouraging questions!! The scientists will never claim he/she knows all the answers, but will seek means on how to gain answers to the questions at hand. Compare this with theologians and their assumption that all the answers can be found within their belief system. Ask yourself, who is really being honest?

 

[amrchaos]

I do not know if the "spiritual method" is similiar to "intuition" or "Dreams" . If they are, then there are many posts on this thread that I actually agree with.

At some point, an assumption must be created before a test can be performed. Observations, familiarization, and even wild hunches can lead to the creation of an Hypothesis. Is this not where science actully starts?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

And anthropology, psychology, and biology.

all sciences

biology is a natural science, as are many aspects of anthropology

CMfail

What the hell are you talking about JB? Those sciences I pointed are ways in which to study humankind, do you for some reason disagree with that? I know you aren't the type to look to religion for your answers, so why does my comment to editec's fail? Perhaps you took what I said out of context? If so, let me just put it back in:

If you want to understand people and society, study history and literature.

And anthropology, psychology, and biology.

Understand now?

 

[Shogun]

Let's make two piles. One that is full of information we've learned from the scientific method and the other from faith based silliness. Who wants to raise their hand and tell me which pile is greater. By far. exponentially greater.

and, if one of you silly dogma junkies wants to say the faith pile then stop using penicilin when you get sick and see how well prayer works to fight an illness.