Is Science the Best Method to Understand the World?

[Audie]

Which is more hubris?

To acknowledge we can be wrong and modify our views as more data comes in, making sure our hypotheses are testable?

OR

Thinking someone 2000 years ago was in contact with the designer and maker of the universe and gave correct information that should not be questioned?

Um, the one who thinks he knows
this God exists and is gifted with personal attention from it, giving him infallible right - reading of the perfect book of knowledge ?

Or science that thrives on proving its ideas wrong.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Don't bother. What @Polymath257 didn't mention is that introspection doesn't answer the question. With introspection you may detect things about yourself but the question was what the best method is to detect things about the world.

I was commenting on @Polymath257 point that "I don't know of a non-scientific method that provides knowledge at all". He didn't specify world in that statement which is why I replied about introspection. "At all" would imply more than just the outside world. He might have meant it in the context of the "world" in which case I misunderstood.

 

[Nakosis]

This you'll have to explain.

Humans are imperfect. Humans had to overcome many obstacles in spite of our imperfections to survive. We had to discover things through trial and error. Fail 99 times to get one success. Develop science to try and compensate for our imperfections. We are what we are and where we are because of our imperfections.

Computers/AI on the other hand, if programmed properly will always come up with the correct answer. Will out-think humans. Will be able to come up with solutions before humans even know there is a problem.

Humans will no longer need to use their brains to solve problems. What we no longer use, we will likely lose. Humans learn best from their mistakes. We will no longer be allowed to make mistakes. won't have to think for ourselves. Little purpose in humans being around any more.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Ok but the things actually used are part of scientific method.

I see the scientific method as a specific process that follows specific steps. Because we often use our intuition I wouldn't see it as a scientific process. But the question now is, if I had to use the scientific method to discover who I am, would that be a superior way of doing it or not?

 

[Augustus]

I don't know of a non-scientific method that provides knowledge at all.

What about the builders who constructed all the wonders of the pre-modern world?

They weren't using "science" but certainly had practical knowledge.

 

[Left Coast]

What about the builders who constructed all the wonders of the pre-modern world?

They weren't using "science" but certainly had practical knowledge.

I would submit that they were using a kind of rudimentary science without calling it that. Observing the world, making guesses about how things work, and then testing out solutions to problems and observing what happens and tweaking their understanding accordingly.

 

[MikeF]

If we let science rule, human beings will likely become obsolete.

Whatever does it mean to be ruled by science? Scientific methods are used to control for human fallibility when evaluating questions of hypothesis or belief that can be true or false. It does not solve the fallibility, only mitigates it. Why would one not want quality control checks on whether something is true or not? Science does not dictate aesthetics, the things we do that bring personal joy or joy to others. I'm not sure any advocate of science would say that it does.

 

[Valjean]

How does one know the properties of the supernatural to know that those properties are not detectible?

One does not know the properties of the supernatural -- precisely because they're undetectable. It's hard to study the undetectable.
Until the undetectable is detected, the supernatural is pure, baseless speculation, outside the purview of science.
And as soon as something new is detected, it's no longer supernatural.

 

[ChristineM]

Why are you quoting a book of folklore? Aren't we discussing science and reality here?

Thank you, considered commenting but am not so polite and didn't want to stoke the wrath of admin

 

[joe1776]

Strongly agree.

I don't know of a non-scientific method that provides knowledge at all.

All questions of fairness or of moral right or wrong are answered by intuitive judgments (conscience) emerging from the unconscious. Science, an activity of the reasoning mind, can't provide those judgments.

 

[Augustus]

I would submit that they were using a kind of rudimentary science without calling it that. Observing the world, making guesses about how things work, and then testing out solutions to problems and observing what happens and tweaking their understanding accordingly.

Can't say I agree with the desire to define every practical activity in human history as being "science".

 

[Polymath257]

What about the builders who constructed all the wonders of the pre-modern world?

They weren't using "science" but certainly had practical knowledge.

I do consider trial and error as a simple form of hypothesis formation and testing, and thereby a simple version of the scientific method.

 

[Polymath257]

All questions of fairness or of moral right or wrong are intuitive judgments emerging from the unconscious. Science, an activity of the reasoning mind, can't provide those judgments.

And I do not consider such judgements to be 'knowledge'. I see them as 'opinions'.

 

[Left Coast]

Can't say I agree with the desire to define every practical activity in human history as being "science".

Why? What else would you call observation, trial and error, and developing more effective solutions based on one's efforts?

What we today call "science" is just a more formalized version of this.

 

[Polymath257]

Why? What else would you call observation, trial and error, and developing more effective solutions based on one's efforts?

What we today call "science" is just a more formalized version of this.

I would agree that it was not yet developed into a formal *method* until relatively recently.

But certainly a LOT of science is done by the 'trial and error' method. Think of all the experiments done to test properties of various materials or the trials of Edison in finding an appropriate filament for light bulbs. Sometimes you just have to collect a LOT of data before you start to see the patterns. But that is the first step of the scientific method.

 

[joe1776]

And I do not consider such judgements to be 'knowledge'. I see them as 'opinions'.

Our opinions differ on this.

 

[MikeF]

There is also nothing in particle physics or biology which gives one a universal standard of ethical conduct.

Are you suggesting that a universal standard of ethical conduct exists? If so, how have you been made aware of it, how was it developed?

 

[Nakosis]

Whatever does it mean to be ruled by science? Scientific methods are used to control for human fallibility when evaluating questions of hypothesis or belief that can be true or false. It does not solve the fallibility, only mitigates it. Why would one not want quality control checks on whether something is true or not?

We only need them because we are imperfect.

Science does not dictate aesthetics, the things we do that bring personal joy or joy to others. I'm not sure any advocate of science would say that it does.

That's another inefficiency with humans, we are always worried about our feelings.

 

[Augustus]

Why? What else would you call observation, trial and error, and developing more effective solutions based on one's efforts?

What we today call "science" is just a more formalized version of this.

Practical knowledge.

Rough heuristics are not 'scientific hypotheses' though, they are more 'do this, it works'.

Michael Oakeshott:

Technical knowledge can be learned from a book; it can be
learned in a correspondence course. Moreover, much of it can be
learned by heart, repeated by rote, and applied mechanically: the
logic of the syllogism is a technique of this kind. Technical knowledge,
in short, can be both taught and learned in the simplest meanings
of these words.

On the other hand, practical knowledge can
neither be taught nor learned, but only imparted and acquired. It
exists only in practice, and the only way to acquire it is by apprenticeship
to a master - not because the master can teach it (he cannot),
but because it can be acquired only by continuous contact with one
who is perpetually practising it. In the arts and in natural science what
normally happens is that the pupil, in being taught and in learning
the technique from his master, discovers himself to have acquired
also another sort of knowledge than merely technical knowledge,
without it ever having been precisely imparted and often without
being able to say precisely what it is. Thus a pianist acquires artistry
as well as technique, a chess-player style and insight into the
game as well as a knowledge of the moves, and a scientist acquires
(among other things) the sort of judgement which tells him when
his technique is leading him astray and the connoisseurship which
enables him to distinguish the profitable from the unprofitable
directions to explore.

Now, as I understand it, Rationalism is the assertion that what I
have called practical knowledge is not knowledge at all, the assertion
that, properly speaking, there is no knowledge which is not technical
knowledge. The Rationalist holds that the only element of
knowledge involved in any human activity is technical knowledge,
and that what I have called practical knowledge is really only a sort
of nescience which would be negligible if it were not positively mischievous.
The sovereignty of 'reason', for the Rationalist, means the
sovereignty of technique.

Posted this earlier, but discussion from about 26 mins onwards addresses some of the issues (whole talk is good though):

 

[SalixIncendium]

The Humanist Manifesto says, in part:


Agree or disagree?

If you disagree, why? What non-scientific method provides us with more accurate knowledge of the world?

Agree.

I have not yet read the thread, but I'd be surprised if anyone disagrees.