Is Science the Best Method to Understand the World?

[Augustus]

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

Can't say I agree that anything derived from practical human experience must constitute science.

Myth is often derived from practical human experience and contains a general truth but it is not 'science'

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Strongly agree.

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

The Socratic method is wonderful.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I got to vote 'Disagree'

Science is the best method for understanding the physical world at this time.

However from my study of the paranormal and psychic I believe science is also an incomplete understanding of all reality.

Spirituality is even more important to human happiness than science.

Where in the OP does it mention "all reality?"

 

[MikeF]

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

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

Science by any other name is still just as sweet! Not sure you get what scientific methods are. In some disciplines one observers, make predictions, test, fail/succeed. This is how practical knowledge was gained and subsequently passed on. We are all scientists in a way, it's just that some are professionals. One might characterize knowledge as reasoned expectation based on experience. If an experience conflicts with expectation, we reanalyze and form a new expectation. That is how we start learning about the world from the moment we are born.

 

[Left Coast]

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):

I'll check out the video later. It seems to me that both these types of knowledge are just different ways of describing scientific investigation by other names. You're still making observations, testing ideas about how the world works, and coming to conclusions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Myth is often derived from practical human experience and contains a general truth but it is not 'science'

There is no truth in the claim that Odin slayed the ice giant Ymir and the world was formed from his corpse. No truth in resurrections. Often no truth is the foundation or destruction of tribes, cities, and kingdom. Sure, the Bible mentions some cities and people who really existed, but it just can't be credibly used as a source of history.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I concur with the South African cosmologist Professor George Ellis when he writes, "The belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy. As pointed out so well by Eddington in his Gifford lectures, they are partial and incomplete representations of physical, biological, psychological, and social reality."

The OP mentions "the world," not all reality. Unless I'm misunderstanding what @Left Coast means by "the world."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'll check out the video later. It seems to me that both these types of knowledge are just different ways of describing scientific investigation by other names. You're still making observations, testing ideas about how the world works, and coming to conclusions.

Repeating amd falsification are essential amd neccessary for science and a very major part of what separates science from the rest.

 

[PureX]

The Humanist Manifesto says, in part: "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."

Agree or disagree?

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

All observation, experimentation, and rational analysis is going to get us is an increased understanding of interactive functionality. Unfortunately, this increase in functional knowledge without the requisite increase in applicable wisdom only makes our existence more precarious, and more dangerous to ourselves, to each other, and to the world as a whole.

 

[MikeF]

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.
As soon as something new is detected, it's no longer supernatural.

Is it hard to study the undetectable, or is it impossible?
To use the term "supernatural" assumes facts not in evidence, doesn't it? Why even use the term? I would think the options are reality, the unknown, and imaginary.

 

[MikeF]

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

And yet, we still must deal with them.

 

[joe1776]

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.

What you are describing is our ability to reason. Science is nothing more than an attempt to limit bias in the reasoning process. While that is a worthy goal, it doesn't work nearly as well as it should because science, unfortunately, has to be done by scientists who are human and therefore capable of biases.

Your post, and the replies, are to me an example of "reason worship." Yes, reason is our best tool for adapting to our environment. But we humans are not nearly as good at it as we'd like to believe. We should stop congratulating ourselves and wonder why science is failing to explain human behavior.

Replication crisis - Wikipedia

 

[Left Coast]

The OP mentions "the world," not all reality. Unless I'm misunderstanding what @Left Coast means by "the world."

"The world" is the term used by the Humanist Manifesto, so I just repeated it for purposes of discussion. I think of the "the world" as all of observable reality; there may be aspects of reality we can't observe but I have no idea what they'd be like.

 

[Left Coast]

All observation, experimentation, and rational analysis is going to get us is an increased understanding of interactive functionality. Unfortunately, this increase in functional knowledge without the requisite increase in applicable wisdom only makes our existence more precarious, and more dangerous to ourselves, to each other, and to the world as a whole.

Hey Pure. Can you explain what you mean by "applicable wisdom" as opposed to "functional knowledge"?

 

[nPeace]

What type of investigation, though? What is the method of that investigation, and how do we determine it's accurate?

For the spirit world, right?

Questions and experiments - for example,
Is the Bible reliable, accurate, and authentic? Can it be trusted?
Is it reasonable to conclude that there is a creator / designer?
Does the evidence meet our expectations, of what would be true?
... and many more related questions.

Observations
(Romans 1:19, 20) 19 ... what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made. . .

If the Bible can be trusted, as the word of God, then it serves as a measuring rod for truth.
(2 Timothy 3:14-17) 14 You, however, continue in the things that you learned and were persuaded to believe, knowing from whom you learned them 15 and that from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

Weight or test the 'knowledge'.
(1 Corinthians 2:13) These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit, as we explain spiritual matters with spiritual words.

(1 Corinthians 3:19) For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.”

(Colossians 2:8) Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

Follow the evidence where it leads.
How do we determine it's accurate? For one thing, consider the results, of course. Quoted before - Matthew 11:25-27
For another, we prove to ourselves. (Romans 12:2)
Thus we have the conviction or the substance of realities.
(Hebrews 11:1) Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.

How do you determine that your beliefs are accurate? Believing that a theory is accurate does not allow you to determine that your interpretation of the 'results" are accurate.
Our results may also be interpreted as accurate.
We can ascertain anything, but that's as much as we can do.
Where does proof comes in? Can any of us absolutely prove anything?

 

[Left Coast]

What you are describing is our ability to reason. Science is nothing more than an attempt to limit bias from the reasoning process. While that is a worthy goal, it doesn't work nearly as well as it should because science, unfortunately, has to be done by scientists who are human and therefore capable of biases.

Your post, and the replies, are to me an example of "reason worship." Yes, reason is our best tool for adapting to our environment. But we humans are not nearly as good at it as we'd like to believe. We should stop congratulating ourselves and wonder why science is failing to explain human behavior.

Replication crisis - Wikipedia

Do you know of a better method for understanding the world than science?

 

[nPeace]

What you are describing is our ability to reason. Science is nothing more than an attempt to limit bias from the reasoning process. While that is a worthy goal, it doesn't work nearly as well as it should because science, unfortunately, has to be done by scientists who are human and therefore capable of biases.

Your post, and the replies, are to me an example of "reason worship." Yes, reason is our best tool for adapting to our environment. But we humans are not nearly as good at it as we'd like to believe. We should stop congratulating ourselves and wonder why science is failing to explain human behavior.

Replication crisis - Wikipedia

Yes. That's correct. A lot of inferences and interpretations.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Seems to be working well enough so far!

 

[osgart]

The method of self reason by way of experiencing self, others, and the environment can produce moral knowledge deductively.

All moral knowledge is founded on qualities of trustworthiness. And anyone can come up with the rule that states, do unto others as you would have done to you, and is without damaging harm, and is responsibly consented to by the others. From there you build virtue upon virtue as applies to others and self upon that law.

 

[nPeace]

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?

Loaded question.
..and you are way off target if any of this is supposed to relate to my response to Valjean.
Thinking that one can know everything, while knowing basically nothing is more hubris.