(October 14, 2013 at 9:09 pm)Faith No More Wrote: You were teasing? Huh. I'm usually pretty good at spotting that.
YOU'RE SLIPPING, MAN! ;D
Probably did come off as me being snide, though, you ARE usually good at that. I might've been a little too subtle this time, though...
(October 14, 2013 at 9:09 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Here's the problem, though. Regardless of whether knowledge is defined well or not, to determine what is and isn't knowledge requires something other than the scientific method. So, to come to the positive conclusion that science is the only way to knowledge requires using something other than science, which makes the claim self-refuting.
To me, though, it isn't. "Belief" comes first, to me. Belief, or thinking, or suspecting. But I don't claim to know those things unless I determine them to be rational, often by testing them or experiencing consistent results. Now, even in those cases, I can be wrong, and when that happens, and I can be shown how I was wrong, and what is right through what makes more logical sense, and thus my knowledge will change. I cannot honestly think of something being considered to be knowledge if it is just simply self-perception that is untested or irrational. It's part of why I reject claims from people who "know they've felt the presence of god/jesus/allah/Bob McGodlypants," because they assume they know. But how do they really? Again, since knowledge is undefined...
I see what you mean, though; before the scientific method, how was anything considered knowledge? I don't know, but just because it wasn't called science back then doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't still what we would recognize as science-like. After all, the scientific method itself seems to have come from what we see as the most reliable methodology for explaining things and collecting knowledge. Stands to reason that the components of the scientific method would've been applied before...maybe even since we began to learn things of substance. The scientific method, no, but scientific in some way? Perhaps.
But...again...the definition of knowledge is subjective. What another may call knowledge, I might call a load of horseshit, and what I may call knowledge, another might show me to be founded on inaccurate information.
I would've been more satisfied with an "There is no answer to this question" option to this poll because THAT would be the better answer to make.