Is science the only way to knowledge?

[Zazzy]

Dramatic much?

Always.

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

Just because Vinnie The Amazing Obfuscationist asked the question didn't annoy me, it was the fact it was annoyingly vague that...well, annoyed me.

But it has generated much useful discussion.

Now, while that is poignant, and believe me when I say I am very, very glad you are getting over your friend's death (not something easy to do), it still doesn't change the fact that this is technically science. You did not know you were getting over it before, but then you realized you were after you had finished listening to the symphony. This, too, is a form of science, albeit unknowingly so. You didn't KNOW you were testing yourself, but in a sense you were.

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.

You avoided the song because it used to remind you of your friend, but when it came on this time, you tested yourself to listen through it.

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.

The end result is the knowledge that you were getting over it. This is, by definition, science. Doesn't mean it's any less poignant.

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

[Faith No More]

---

Smart-ass. You know damn well I was teasing.

Now, these are all things that we have learned and given names to. We have tested these things; conceived of them, and tested them, and know they're things that exist.

That is science. We're not discussing scientific PROOFS, we're talking about whether or not science is the only way to knowledge. Knowledge is, duh, KNOWING something. We know morality, ethics, logic, political theory, mathematics, etc. and we've done so through testing them.

Science is defined as a method of building and organizing knowledge through tests and trials. But it's also defined as a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. You can rationally explain all those things you listed, and you can reliably apply them.

Is knowledge not something you gain through observation, or experience, or through experimenting with things? And do you not come to realize you know something as factual through testing it?

I need to stress the importance of something, here. As I said before, the OP is infuriatingly vague. I know he is fishing for answers to give him fuel to try to justify his own half-cocked logic because he's been incapable of actually defending his own stance. He has never made a clear, valid point, and has fallen to using subjective opinion to try to state that he is in fact speaking truth. But also, he's quite obviously a troll.

To cut through the bullshit, I'm going to state something that nobody else has had the common sense to point out.

KNOWLEDGE IS UNDEFINED.

THERE IS NO SINGLE AGREED UPON DEFINITION OF WHAT KNOWLEDGE IS.

You must first define what you consider knowledge, before you can say whether or not science is the only way to obtain it.

I consider knowledge as something factual, something that you strongly believe is correct through experience, testing, witnessing, observing, and confirming through others; to KNOW something means you cannot conceive of any other possibility because of this, but that it must be something that can be changed, with further input.

So the question becomes, what do you all consider knowledge? Because, to me? Science is the only way to knowledge, the only way I can actually KNOW something, as opposed to suspecting or merely believing it.

Cannot believe I'm the first person who's pointed out the subjectivity of this question...

---

You were teasing? Huh. I'm usually pretty good at spotting that.

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.

[Bucky Ball]

Anyone who voted no on this didn't think this question over. At all. And you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Dramatic much?

Let me give you an example, Creed. Several months ago as I was listening to the local classical music station, Smetana's Die Moldau Smetana's Die Moldau came on. I have avoided this piece for years, because it was the favorite piece of music of a very good friend who died some years ago, and hearing it has always made me cry and miss him and feel bad. But this time, I sat down and listened, and let it do what good music does. I totally lost myself in it. I just let it wash over me. And when it was over, I realized I had learned something without thinking about it consciously- that I am getting over my friend's death. It was something I didn't know before the piece, and I knew it after. It was knowledge acquired.

Now, you can try to contort my experience to fit some definition of scientific exploration if you wish because you don't like the fact that Vinny asked this question, but it doesn't change my experience.

You had an aesthetic experience. Those experiences are not invalidated by the fact that they can be (are ARE ) subjected to scientific examination. If you did not have a functioning brain, and sensory system, it would not have been possible.

[Zazzy]

You had an aesthetic experience. Those experiences are not invalidated by the fact that they can be (are ARE ) subjected to scientific examination. If you did not have a functioning brain, and sensory system, it would not have been possible.

My brain is a natural entity, but it certainly isn't due to my scientific exploration of it. As I said to creed, if you are going to rig the game by claiming that anything relating to any knowledge in any way at all is part of scientific exploration, then of course you win the argument. I just think that's some pretty tortured defining of how humans experience scientific exploration.

Minds and emotions are not science. They can be explored by scientific means. If someone randomly punches me in the face and I learn how much that hurts, I don't think that because I have a face with nerve endings that fire pain messages in my brain, that you can claim I have had an experience of scientific exploration. Or maybe you can. We'll see.

[Bucky Ball]

My brain is a natural entity, but it certainly isn't due to my scientific exploration of it.

I never said it was. However everything that goes on your your brain can be the subject of scientific examination, including the sense of wonder, and aesthetic experiences. I did not say they were "part of scientific exploration", but these experiences *can* be (are, and have been) subjected to scientific examination, and can be explained by science. Anything humans brains do, and experience, can be examined by science.

I certainly am NOT claiming the experience and the examination of the experience are the same thing.

[Zazzy]

I never said it was. However everything that goes on your your brain can be the subject of scientific examination, including the sense of wonder, and aesthetic experiences. I did not say they were "part of scientific exploration", but these experiences *can* be (are, and have been) subjected to scientific examination, and can be explained by science. Anything humans brains do, and experience, can be examined by science.

Well, we're getting there with exploring anything human brains experience. The next few decades will be a wonder of discovery. But just because we CAN examine it scientifically doesn't mean I AM exploring it scientifically. An emotional revelation during an unexpected musical experience, or getting randomly punched in the face, will surely teach me things, but not because I'm exploring them.

I certainly am NOT claiming the experience and the examination of the experience are the same thing.

OK. So are you still disagreeing with me?

By the by, these challenges to my claim have been most instructive- a scientific learning experience! I thank all of you for making me think through it and examine it closely.

[Creed of Heresy]

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...

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.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

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

[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...

[Faith No More]

But I don't claim to know those things unless I determine them to be rational, often by testing them or experiencing consistent results.

But how do you determine what is rational with the scientific method?