Is science the only way to knowledge?

[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).