Is science the only way to knowledge?

[Faith No More]

And what you just described is not taking the advice of science. It's offering a liberal arts view on how to view life.

Who dresses you in the morning, because you sure as shit can't do something that complicated on your own.

[MindForgedManacle]

To say that "Science is the only way to know things" is self-refuting. Clearly that statement is itself purported knowledge, yet wasn't itself arrived at by science.

Further, there seem to be domains in which science isn't useful. Ironically (given the thread title), one such field (among others) would seem to be epistemology, that is, theories of knowledge. And some epistemic definition (say 'justified true belief') and metaphysical assumptions (whether ontological or simply methodological) are necessary for science on the outset, which entails having some knowledge before the science begins.


I think Daniel Dennett put it well:

But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.

EDIT:

To add some, other areas where science seems useless would be about, say, what is truth? Is it the correspondence between assertion and reality (correspondence theory) or does truth refer to statements that cohere together (coherence theory).

Or ethics. Political philosophy? Logic?

---

Vinny, for someone who supposedly knows a lot about philosophy, you asked some weird questions. Specifically the solipsism one. That can't be known by definition, hence why external world skepticism has been an undeniable pain in the ass for philosophy for 2300+ years. And Kant's work demonstrating an inherent prohibition on us being able to know anything about whatever reality may be beyond our perceptions was - as far as I can tell - the nail in the coffin.

[Creed of Heresy]

Well, then, perhaps you have one thing going for you.

Still, I don't know what good the ability to spell will do you when you're dumb enough to drown yourself in a drinking fountain.

Coming from one of the dumbest members on this site, please excuse me if I take that with a shaker of salt.

Says the guy who used the concept of eugenics to state that science teaches survival of the fittest to be the reason for immoral behavior.

Nevermind that eugenics is to science what homeopathy is to medicine.

By the way, the terminology was "to add a grain of salt" in the original meaning of that message. It was actually translated in both that context, and also in the context of "to take a small grain of wit."

You lack wit. You lack fundamental understanding of science. You lack a brain. Contribute something relevant to the conversation or be silent in the presence of your intellectual superiors. A child is to be seen and not heard, and you are the intellectual child in this.

---

To say that "Science is the only way to know things" is self-refuting. Clearly that statement is itself purported knowledge, yet wasn't itself arrived at by science.

Further, there seem to be domains in which science isn't useful. Ironically (given the thread title), one such field (among others) would seem to be epistemology, that is, theories of knowledge. And some epistemic definition (say 'justified true belief') and metaphysical assumptions (whether ontological or simply methodological) are necessary for science on the outset, which entails having some knowledge before the science begins.


I think Daniel Dennett put it well:

But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.

EDIT:

To add some, other areas where science seems useless would be about, say, what is truth? Is it the correspondence between assertion and reality (correspondence theory) or does truth refer to statements that cohere together (coherence theory).

Or ethics. Political philosophy? Logic?

---

Vinny, for someone who supposedly knows a lot about philosophy, you asked some weird questions. Specifically the solipsism one. That can't be known by definition, hence why external world skepticism has been an undeniable pain in the ass for philosophy for 2300+ years. And Kant's work demonstrating an inherent prohibition on us being able to know anything about whatever reality may be beyond our perceptions was - as far as I can tell - the nail in the coffin.

I've said it a dozen times and I'll say it once more; this all depends on what you define as knowledge.

Everyone is taking the definition of knowledge too flippantly in this discussion. This is a subjective question, not an objective one. I'd much rather hear others discussing what they view as knowledge, as opposed to whether or not science is the only way to the undefined axiom. Does one define knowledge as that which one believes to be true, as in, what they subjectively think is true, or does one define knowledge as that which have non-subjectively been shown to be truth? Even before the scientific method, I argue again, what was once used to determine factual aspects of the world was discovered using methods that we recognize today as very much what inspired the creation of the scientific method as we know it today. Observing the world, testing the world, seeking common understanding of the world with others...this is a simple, intrinsic part of human nature.

[MindForgedManacle]

I've said it a dozen times and I'll say it once more; this all depends on what you define as knowledge.

I specifically noted in that post a particular definition of knowledge: Plato's 2300 year old 'justified true belief' definition of knowledge.

Everyone is taking the definition of knowledge too flippantly in this discussion. This is a subjective question, not an objective one. I'd much rather hear others discussing what they view as knowledge, as opposed to whether or not science is the only way to the undefined axiom. Does one define knowledge as that which one believes to be true, as in, what they subjectively think is true, or does one define knowledge as that which have non-subjectively been shown to be truth?

I haven't taken it flippantly, I think. However, as far as I know essentially all definitions of knowledge deal with it being a species of belief, not something distinct from it. Take Plato's definition that I mentioned earlier. Knowledge would be a belief that is true (that is, a correspondence between that belief and a given state of affairs of reality) and justified (has some sort of supporting evidence, such as logical or empirical).

Even before the scientific method, I argue again, what was once used to determine factual aspects of the world was discovered using methods that we recognize today as very much what inspired the creation of the scientific method as we know it today. Observing the world, testing the world, seeking common understanding of the world with others...this is a simple, intrinsic part of human nature.

And that's just wrong. When you talk about what truth or knowledge are, you aren't engaging in any sort of empirical enquiry, which is what science is. You are essentially following chains of reasoning to derive true, coherent conclusions. Sure, you can say the scientific method was inspired by that, but there are a couple of problems. Firstly, as I just showed they are not the same. One involves some sort of empirical investigation followed by attempts to draw a general framework that describes a given class of phenomena with predictive accuracy.

Secondly, there really isn't a "the" scientific method. Science essentially does what works, and will even transgress "the" scientific method so as to make sense of discoveries (ex: the discovery of either Uranus or Neptune, I forget which).

[Polaris]

Creed. Thanks for the irony.

[MindForgedManacle]

Polaris, you've demonstrated you don't understand science blatantly. "Survival of the fittest" describes being most adapted to some particular niche or environment, it's not about being objectively 'better' than someone else by being stronger or smarter or something. And taking into account that humans have essentially walled themselves off from natural selection (in any obvious way, in any case), to bring up eugenics is to essentially be ignorant beyond belief.

[Polaris]

Polaris, you've demonstrated you don't understand science blatantly. "Survival of the fittest" describes being most adapted to some particular niche or environment, it's not about being objectively 'better' than someone else by being stronger or smarter or something. And taking into account that humans have essentially walled themselves off from natural selection (in any obvious way, in any case), to bring up eugenics is to essentially be ignorant beyond belief.

Well white people will disappear as an ethnic group in a rather short amount of time...science.

[Owlix]

I vote no on this because there are other types of knowledge.

[MindForgedManacle]

Well white people will disappear as an ethnic group in a rather short amount of time...science.

Most likely false, as demonstrated by the known fact that contrary to popular belief, ethnic distinctions are growing despite globalization.

And in case you're implying I'm a 'white' person (which is not a real thing), my father is a dark black man descended from Congo (if I recall correctly). So, great tacit admission that what I said was correct.

[Polaris]

Well white people will disappear as an ethnic group in a rather short amount of time...science.

Most likely false, as demonstrated by the known fact that contrary to popular belief, ethnic distinctions are growing despite globalization.

And in case you're implying I'm a 'white' person (which is not a real thing), my father is a dark black man descended from Congo (if I recall correctly). So, great tacit admission that what I said was correct.

You know of Mendelian genetics? On a much more complicated system of genetic expression; that is what is happening to white people and is projected to happen to white people over the next several generations....ironic for how much the Nazis talked about a superior race, they had weaker genetics.