Is science the only way to knowledge?

[LastPoet]

No, I'll give you an example: My grandfather knows nothing about biology, yet, he knows how to plant alot of edible plants, the correct time of year to do so etc. Music does have a mathematical component, but math isn't science anyway.

[max-greece]

No - maths is.

[Chas]

No, I'll give you an example: My grandfather knows nothing about biology, yet, he knows how to plant alot of edible plants, the correct time of year to do so etc. Music does have a mathematical component, but math isn't science anyway.

Your grandfather's success shows that he actually does know a lot about biology and is a practicing scientist.

[Jackalope]

No. Science is the most useful tool we have for gaining empirical knowledge, but not all knowledge can be gained empirically.

[Anomalocaris]

I don't need science to know vinny G is a piece of shit full of little pieces of shit. So science is not the only way to knowledge.


Science is a craft that has been shown time and again to be by far the most reliable means for performing incremental search of knowledge. To properly apply the craft of science one needs to start from a foundation, built by prior practices of science, sufficiently robust and close to the point of search to support the search.

Where science would appear to falter is where science has not yet reached the step capable of supporting a particular search, yet those claiming to practice the craft of science uses the jargons of science to pretend science has offered rewards for the search.

At any given stage, science can not be properly applied to all possible searches, only those seaches which can be properly conducted from the base science has already up to that moment.

Given infinite time for diligent practice, can science bring all knowledge that can conceivably be gained within its reach? Possibly. Can science provide all possible knowledge now? No. Can other means provide it where science fails? That depends, when other means appear to provide knowledge not yet attainable by science, by what standard do you judge such knowledge to be real and would not be overthrown when science does get around eventually to put that knowledge within its reach?

[Fruity]

I don't need science to know vinny G is a piece of shit full of little pieces of shit. So science is not the only way to knowledge.

Chuck, this made me chuckle.

[paulpablo]

I would be tempted to say yes the only way to knowledge is by science.

I did at first think of some exceptions to this but then changed my mind after thinking about it.

Even in music and poetry you have to first still play the notes or write the words and test and experiment what they sound like.

Even if you're talking about personal tastes about what you like or dislike you have to still decide if you like something by testing it.

Mathematical ideas have to be tested.

Even if you're studying English you only know as a person that what you're being taught is right when you test your English knowledge and you know other people are understanding it and you're communicating English effectively.

Since science is basically defined as the practice of acquiring knowledge you have to ask yourself what knowledge can you have without acquiring it.

[Zazzy]

Even in music and poetry you have to first still play the notes or write the words and test and experiment what they sound like.

Babies respond to music without having experimented. You don't have to play music or write poetry or understand anything about their production or the author's intent to appreciate them.

I don't play an instrument and I can't read music, but I know that certain pieces of music make me feel things that help me understand myself better. It's a personal thing that is difficult to describe (perhaps like theists' experiences of spiritual states), but it certainly isn't a scientific endeavor for me to listen to music.

[Zen Badger]

Is science the only way to knowledge?

Let's see:

Science based knowledge: Cato must thrust his dick in Vinny's ass in order for Vinny to determine whether or not the experience is enjoyable.

Non-science based knowledge: Vinny can imagine the interaction and decide without actual experiment.

Do you have any other stupid fucking questions you need an answer to?

But until the experiment is performed it is not science.

So I'm afraid Vinnie will just have to take it up the ass in the name of progress.

And you never know, he just might like it. Plenty of other people do.

[paulpablo]

Even in music and poetry you have to first still play the notes or write the words and test and experiment what they sound like.

Babies respond to music without having experimented. You don't have to play music or write poetry or understand anything about their production or the author's intent to appreciate them.

I don't play an instrument and I can't read music, but I know that certain pieces of music make me feel things that help me understand myself better. It's a personal thing that is difficult to describe (perhaps like theists' experiences of spiritual states), but it certainly isn't a scientific endeavor for me to listen to music.

babies respond to music, you respond to music and appreciate it but that doesn't indicate you acquired any knowledge, to learn more about the music and to acquire knowledge would require more studying and testing.