mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Is that accurate? What is your evidence? What kind of science did you use? What is your knowledge?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Science the Best Method to Understand the World?
- Thread starter Left Coast
- Start date
Is that accurate? What is your evidence? What kind of science did you use? What is your knowledge?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Again an emotion and no evidence.
Now to answer your question: What is for a we, all humans, the best way to understand the world? Well, in my opinion and it is my opinion, because it ends in different opinions, social democratic welfare state regulated capitalism representative democracy is the best way to understand the world for us, humans, as in the world, a part of the world, but not all of the world.
This understanding includes the will of the people, as, we the people, informed by natural/hard science, social/soft science, human science, the arts, philosophy and religion. That is a political ideology just as this one:
"Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies."
The most accurate view of the world for we, the people, is democracy.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
"If you disagree, why? What non-scientific method provides us with more accurate knowledge of the world?"Again, a fascinating answer to a different question. Bye Mikkel!
I don't in effect believe as you do about what method, us, accurate, knowledge and the world are.
In my opinion that is not as self-evident as you treat it:
In effect you are a scientific technocrat, who don't understand the limits of this: "as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies" in regards to what the world is as including humans with what is useful/beneficial.
You are in effect a believer in scientism: "Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values."
That is so, because that this means:
"Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies."
That is in other words nothing but normative and epistemological values. The epistemology is here: "Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis."
You are a believer in scientism.
I am not. That doesn't mean that I don't accept science as valuable. I just don't assign the value to the scientific method as you do. We are of different opinions and we don't agree.
In effect you take your normative opinion to be facts. That is irrational and illogical as how the world works including, but not limited to humans.
You're repeating yourself, Mikkel. We've discussed all this before. You're uninterested in the topic of this thread. All you're interested in doing is telling me I'm wrong, somehow. But not actually replying to the thread topic. It's like replying to a conversation about how to bake a pie to get a crispier pie crust and saying you don't think pie is all that great. If that's your view, then don't join the conversation. Go do something else.
So this is my final reply to you here. Have a nice day, Mikkel.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
You want to narrow what the world, we, best, beneficial, understanding, accurate, method, knowledge and so on are. And yes, you are as far as what you claim wrong in the intellectual/cognitive sense of what the world is in practice.
Now that in effect means nothing because of cognitive relativism. It is a fact that you and I can believe differently, but if we are to play of game of in the end truth and knowledge, you are wrong. Not morally, but wrong in that the world is not what you think it is.
So I am not allowed to disagree:
"If you disagree, why? What non-scientific method provides us with more accurate knowledge of the world?"
That depends on what you take for granted in regards to what science, method, us, accurate and knowledge are?
There are in effect no strong objective definitions of those abstract, cognitive terms. All of them have an element of cultural and cognitive relativism.
That you don't understand that, is your problem, not mine. Us is not a natural, objective, scientific fact. It is a cultural product.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
If all sciences are the same and not different, then why differentiate/classify them as natural and social, please? Right, friend, please?
Regards
epronovost
Well-Known Member
Because of their subject (one describes the nautural world and the other humans and their civilisations). Plus there isn't even a hard barrier between the two. Biology and medical sciences for example sit on the fence between the two as do anthropology. The fact remains, if their are called sciences are use the same methodology then it's a science.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Aren't humans a tiny spot/part of the nature/natural world/universe, why they couldn't be included in the natural sciences, please? Why the separation of social sciences from the natural, please?
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
epronovost
Well-Known Member
It's a convention. Traditionnaly there was a strong seperation between what was "natural" as in savage and untouched or not influenced by humans activities like physics or chemistry and domains created by human activities like psychology or sociology which is intensely about humans and human phenomenons. That's why biology and medical sciences often sit on the fence between the two.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Friend! We were not discussing any traditions of Science or its convention, rather we were focused on Science/Scientific-Method and Natural Sciences that form the basis of Science/Scientific Method. As I mentioned in my previous post, we humans are a tiny spot in the Nature/Universe, why humans are not covered under the meritorious Natural-Sciences/Scientific Method. What compelled to make exception and relaxation for the Social body of knowledge/technique/skill/scholarship, please?
Right, please?
Regards
________
"A scientific theory of everything?"
“Science does not tell us how to live” Leo Tolstoy
“With the rapid advancement of knowledge produced by the sciences over the last centuries, people started to explore the boundaries of the latter's scope. Some feel that because of science's successes, virtually everything can and should be explained through the natural sciences. In that respect, science can become a kind of religion, the basic explanation of our human condition and an answer to our moral questions. But are the successes in the field of the natural sciences sufficient to discard knowledge constructed within other areas of knowledge? Not really, the natural sciences do not offer much guidance in terms of how we ought to live our lives, for example.”
“So are we suitable objects for (natural) scientific study? Can we fully explain how our body works in scientific terms? Is illness purely biological? What about mental illness? Where do natural sciences stop and human sciences begin? Human beings are difficult and complex objects of study.”
Natural Sciences
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Is Science the Best Method to Understand the World?
One may like to read my posts #65,#75,#76, #77 in another thread that are very relevant here also, I understand. Right friends, please?
Regards
One may like to read my posts #65,#75,#76, #77 in another thread that are very relevant here also, I understand. Right friends, please?
Regards
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Sorry to intervene, friend!
" if we want to conceive them or communicate about them coherently, we have to employ logic."
Does one mean/establish here that to adhere to logic "is the best method to understand the world", please. Right, please?
I figure not many of the scientists are experts on logic, so instead, to be reasonable is sufficient. Right, please?
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Aren't feelings and sentiments important elements of human life without them humans will be just like robots. Right, please?
Regards
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Feelings and sentiments are necessary, but not sufficient.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Does one needs more of the sentiments, the present ones are not sufficient for you, please? Love plays the most positive roles and motives in human life, can one deny it, please? Right, please?
Regards