Is science the only way to knowledge?

[Creed of Heresy]

I like you, Creed. You are a breath of fresh air.

Why, thank you!

But it has generated much useful discussion.

It has, I won't deny this, but at the same time, I find the "yes" or "no" nature of the poll to be insufficient. This is a question I would much rather say "I don't know" to. There are too many factors to consider to make an easy answer. I put "yes" but only because from my own subjective POV, science is the only way I can really confirm whether I actually know something, or whether or not I am deluded in a stance I might take. I won't lie, I take preconceived stances without thinking them over often enough, but when I am shown information that runs contrary to what I was believing, and it is far more rational, logical, and/or provable...I have no choice but to accept that I was wrong. The idea of knowledge can be something that you don't need to test or prove, that you can just simply "know," makes no sense to me. I've been told it's a self-refuting argument, but is it? Just because the scientific method itself is recent and didn't exist until recently, doesn't mean that the ideas on which it is founded weren't science-like, or approximations or precursors of it. Is it not human nature to experiment? Have we not always been curious since before we were humans? And is not the experimentation of something not the pursuit of gaining knowledge? I would say the scientific method is just a refinement of this process with greater control and specifications and QA, but that doesn't mean that, at least in spirit, science has not always been ingrained in our species' approach to the world. I'd prefer to call it primal science as opposed to the scientific method.

Sigh. If you are going to define science as achieving any knowledge at all in any way, even if that knowledge smacks you out of the blue (I swear, those gentle opening bars that I had not heard in years just punched me in the chest and sat my ass down), then the game is rigged and your point is made. But if you think science is a process of exploration, then I think my experience muddies those waters.

Well, the secondary definition of science is any body of knowledge that can be reliably applied, and reasonably explained. But the problem I have with this is that, again...no solid definition of knowledge, so...where do I go with this, at that point, you know? All I can really hold the answer to is my own subjective opinion on that.

It hijacked me. And the point is I didn't have to test myself- it happened to me. It was like being taken hostage and then realizing that your captor is feeding you chocolate mousse and then sending you home.

Sounds like a hell of an experience.

I'll think about your interpretation of my experience, Creed. It's worth re-examining under your light.

Disclaimer: It's not for everyone.

---

Good to see you guys using your brain in this thread.

Yeah, we're the ones who have to show we have the capacity to do that...