Is science the only way to knowledge?

[Creed of Heresy]

Simple question for those that said 'yes': how did we acquire knowledge of the scientific method?

Generally by application of processes and ideas that would later coalesce into what we know as the scientific method today. The method's precursors, I suppose you could call them, were nevertheless bodies of knowledge...which were defined as "science."

I voted yes, but only because the question was obnoxiously vague, which given Vinnie is its source, well...why can't I hold all these surprises. "Only way to knowledge?" Knowledge of what? Subjective knowledge? Objective knowledge? Are we talking in concepts wherein someone experiencing a god and "knows" it to be real can say that it is knowledge? Or do we mean, knowledge as in accurately learning things about the universe in which we dwell? Do we mean knowledge as in, knowing how to play an instrument through practice? And what do you define as "science?" Do you mean the method? Or do you just mean science in all of its definitions? Because science is also used to describe a body of knowledge that can be rationally explained and/or reliably applied.

So, in which case...yes. Given that science is in and of itself the name for knowledge, it is the only way to knowledge. Picking up a guitar and strumming at the strings is you doing science; you are testing the instrument, and as you get better at it, you test it further to master your knowledge of what the instrument can do. Your knowledge of notes and pitches and frets is not something you just spontaneously know, it's something you learn, either from sheet music or through trial-and-error. Nobody just picks up an instrument and, presto, they know how to make music. They know how to make noise at first without any prior training. They know how to make noise because you test out how to make it make noise.

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

[Zazzy]

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.

[paulpablo]

zazzy I've already agreed with you on one point you can gain knowledge of unscientific things such as fiction without science.

But you are incredibly vague as to actually saying what knowledge you have gained through music, I still don't agree that music teaches anything and I'm heavily into music, studied it for a while, I play it a lot.
I never considered myself to have learned anything while listening to music and you still haven't said specifically what knowledge you have gained about yourself while listening to music.

I'd say even if you learned about the emotions you feel due to music you still would need to know what the different emotions are to know you felt what is known as an emotion rather than just feeling the emotion.

Even if you discover without science different notes make you feel different things the only way to progress in gaining more knowledge about this is from experimentation and testing, which has been done which is why there's music theory and different scales relating to how they usually make people feel for example minor scales and major scales.

[Zazzy]

But you are incredibly vague as to actually saying what knowledge you have gained through music, I still don't agree that music teaches anything and I'm heavily into music, studied it for a while, I play it a lot.

Did you miss the post right above this one? It's pretty specific.

I never considered myself to have learned anything while listening to music

OK. That's your experience.

and you still haven't said specifically what knowledge you have gained about yourself while listening to music.

I gave a specific example above.

I'd say even if you learned about the emotions you feel due to music you still would need to know what the different emotions are to know you felt what is known as an emotion rather than just feeling the emotion.

I'm not sure that I've ever "studied and experimented" with emotions, although it's something I'd have to ponder. Knowing the names for emotions is a different thing than feeling them. It's actually a good question, and one I'll think about.

Even if you discover without science different notes make you feel different things the only way to progress in gaining more knowledge about this is from experimentation and testing, which has been done which is why there's music theory and different scales relating to how they usually make people feel for example minor scales and major scales.

But I don't study music. I only vaguely know what major and minor scales are. I don't have any music theory education at all. I just listen. It's true that I've trained myself through experimentation to like forms of music I otherwise wouldn't have, but that's a different thing than what I'm talking about. It may be that to gain MORE knowledge I would have to study, but that doesn't negate the knowledge I acquire before the study.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Well, if you include basic observation as "science" yeah, I guess.

[daandaan]

Well, if you include basic observation as "science" yeah, I guess.

merhaba, what other methods would u recommand??

[Faith No More]

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

Then I'll be awaiting your scientific proofs for logic, mathematics, morality, and political theory.

Oh, wait, you didn't think this question over, did you?

---

Besides, the knowledge that science is the only method for obtaining knowledge is not something that can be gained via the scientific method, so your claim is self-refuting.

[Tonus]

The invisible science fairy made me select "Yes." Can you prove she doesn't exist? Yeah, didn't think so. Science wins again!

[Creed of Heresy]

Dramatic much?

Always.

Let me give you an example, Creed. Several months ago as I was listening to the local classical music station, 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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

[Creed of Heresy]

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

Then I'll be awaiting your scientific proofs for logic, mathematics, morality, and political theory.

Oh, wait, you didn't think this question over, did you?

---

Besides, the knowledge that science is the only method for obtaining knowledge is not something that can be gained via the scientific method, so your claim is self-refuting.

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...