Is Science the Best Method to Understand the World?

[Left Coast]

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.

But what method are you using to find answers to those questions re: the spirit world, if it isn't science? How would we determine that what the Bible says about "the spirit world" is accurate?

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. . .

Which observations have been made of the spirit world?

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.

How do you non-scientifically determine if the Bible can be trusted?

Weight or test the 'knowledge'.

What does this mean? You seem to be using scientific terminology: observation, testing, etc. But this is a non-scientific process you're describing? How would you non-scientifically test something?

Follow the evidence where it leads.

Evidence collected how? How does one collect evidence of spirits?

How do you determine that your beliefs are accurate?

Empirically testing them. So for example, if I believe I have $5 in my pocket, I test that by looking in my pocket and seeing if I have US currency in there totalling $5.

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.

This is one reason why in science we make predictions ahead of time when we plan to test hypotheses. Post hoc rationalization is too easy.

Where does proof comes in? Can any of us absolutely prove anything?

I don't think we have absolute proof of pretty much anything. We have evidence that leads us to probabilistic conclusions about what is more or less likely to be the case.

 

[PureX]

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

"Functional knowledge" is all about control. It's about learning how the physical world we live in functions, so that we can manipulate it to our advantage (interactive functionality). The problem, then, is that the more we learn to control how the world we live in functions, the more able we are to destroy ourselves, each other, and the world by abusing that control.

So how we do learn how NOT to abuse that increased control? We need to learn how and when to apply it, and how and when NOT to. And this involves applicable wisdom, as opposed to just functional knowledge. It means learning when and how to let go of our obsessive need to control everything, (and always to our own advantage). An idea that is almost non-existent in our current culture!

 

[joe1776]

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

It depends on what you mean by "the world." If you're talking about the questions of morality, conscience (moral intuition) is the only source of knowledge we have. If you 're talking about questions of reason, then science is the best we can do.

 

[Left Coast]

"Functional knowledge" is all about control. It's about learning how the physical world we live in functions, so that we can manipulate it to our advantage (interactive functionality). The problem, then, is that the more we learn to control how the world we live in functions, the more able we are to destroy ourselves, each other, and the world by abusing that control.

So how we do learn how NOT to abuse that increased control? We need to learn how and when to apply it, and how and when NOT to. And this involves applicable wisdom, as opposed to just functional knowledge. It means learning when and how to let go of our obsessive need to control everything, (and always to our own advantage). An idea that is almost non-existence in our current culture!

I see what you mean. From my perspective, science is quite useful in obtaining what you're calling applicable wisdom. Through science we can learn how best to cooperate for mutual benefit of as many people as possible.

 

[exchemist]

You asked if science can help us understand Bach's music. So I guess the question is what you mean by "understand?"

I find this disingenuous. It should be obvious that when I talk about Bach's music I am not referring to the production of musical sound. That would tell you zippo about Bach's works. I am referring to the techniques he uses, what he is expressing, what influenced him in writing, what allusions he makes to other music, what symbolism it contains, etc. All these are the things that help one understand and appreciate his art and thus help to account for why it is so absorbing to listen to and why it can evoke emotions in the listener. One does not turn to science for such things. That is my point.

One could provide examples from other Humanities that would illustrate the same general point. There is far more to human experience than the natural world and its mechanisms. One therefore needs other tools than science for such things.

Although I am a scientist by background, I prefer to go through life with a toolbox that does not only have spanners in it.

 

[joe1776]

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

I consider science an advanced form of the reasoning method.

 

[Left Coast]

I find this disingenuous. It should be obvious that when I talk about Bach's music I am not referring to the production of musical sound. That would tell you zippo about Bach's works. I am referring to the techniques he uses, what he is expressing, what influenced him in writing, what allusions he makes to other music, what symbolism it contains, etc.

Every single thing on that list can be explained via science. How would you endeavor to answer any of these questions without any empirical investigation?

You seem to be under the impression that art or history are not fields of empirical inquiry. That is just incorrect.

 

[PureX]

I see what you mean. From my perspective, science is quite useful in obtaining what you're calling applicable wisdom. Through science we can learn how best to cooperate for mutual benefit of as many people as possible.

The problem is that science can't tell us WHY it's better to cooperate for the sake of everyone's well-being, instead of competing to increase our own well-being at the expense of everyone else's. Logic will tell us that cooperation results in more humans living better lives. But logic cannot tell us why that's better than a few humans living really great lives at the expense of all the other humans living not-so-great lives. Especially if your one of those lucky few humans living a really great life because you have managed to gain control over the lives and well-being of so many others, and then take it from them for your own.

 

[Nakosis]

And yet, we still must deal with them.

But science doesn't really need to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. Science is extremely useful in understanding music.
...

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Science is also useful if you want to torture humans. Useful is subjective and have no objective referent.

 

[Fool]

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?

not everything is controllable or repeatable; so western science has it's limits because of those reasons. only materialistic things are controllable. it is to these that mathematics can explain.

but then there is consciousness, science can recreate it to the point that the AI can't feel disgust; when it tastes something it doesn't like, or color as red, or other subjective things.

sso it takes a different type of science, or level of consciousness to understand itself.

it would seem that some western science believes consciousness is a bottom up thing and ceases to exist at a human level. unfortunately there isn't much to a consciousness down approach with lesser consciousness becoming a simpler thing with simpler structures.


but that would mean consciousness is more fluid at higher levels and less solid. but again you can't recreate what you can't control. i specifically use the term recreate because that is what mind does. it recreates what is within it's earthly, western science control.


so western science is good for materialistic without consideration of consciousness but otherwise it fails because of consciousness and the observer effect

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

I don't want your option as what you consider knowledge. With you I need knowledge. How do you know that knowledge is knowledge. And remember no subjectivity. Only scientific knowledge.

BTW you don't see them as "opinions". You understand them as "opinions".

 

[thomas t]

How would we scientifically investigate God?

that's not my field I'm not a scientist.
What's your professional field? (no need to answer, just consider...) Would you ever ask a layman how he would do your work? I wouldn't.

But I would at least try as a scientist, even if I can't tell you how to proceed.

Trying to detect the Creator of the universe cannot be compared to trying to detect Nessie or Batboy.
Nessie or Batboy aren't relevant enough.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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?

First off. You are in the world, a part of the world is in you and you are a part of the world. The world is not just around you.

So with the world out of the way let us test the claim:
"...Science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies."
Now I am going to say no. And examine what happens. I subjectively chose to say no. I can in fact do it and what I do, is subjective and I know this. I can learn to understand, explain and use subjectivity. I have knowledge as:
I know that it is subjective, because it is a choice in me.
I how it works, I choose between 2 or more options, where all are possible, but cancel each other out.
I can test if it works for relevant cases.

Now I am not nice. But the stupidity of this, is that all tests are not based on observations. The test above, where I could agree or disagree can't be answered with science. It can only be answered with subjectivity.
All knowledge of the world is not about the objective. That is what observation requires. Some things you know, because you understand it subjectively. This is not an "opinion". You know that you subjectively agree or disagree.
You wouldn't say that I am of the opinion that I can agree or disagree. You would say: I know I can agree or disagree.

Now notice something that is a dead give-away: "... Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies."
They find. The word "find" is an opinion.

@Polymath257 You really have to learn to spot opinions.

So the answer to the test is, if all knowledge is objective? And the answer is no. I know that I can answer no, because not everything I know is objective.
E.g. I know I like German WW2 Tiger Tanks. But that is not science. I even travel to see one and I hate travelling. That is how I know how much it subjective meant to me.

Now what is the best in the world? That is subjective:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Science does not claim to know everything. Nor do scientists. But we do know *some* things. And we know them because of the scientific method.

 

[Polymath257]

The Socratic method is wonderful.

It can be a good start, especially in determining how we want to define things.

But it has a major drawback: it often arrives at conclusions that seem plausible, even intuitive, but are simply wrong when actually tested. And it has no way to correct itself without essentially doing the scientific method.

For example, the Aristotelian idea that heavy things fall faster than lighter things seems reasonable. If the Socratic method is used in the absence of observation and testing, it can *and did* get this wrong. Furthermore, without observation and testing, there is no way for a Socratic dialog to determine it is wrong. This is one reason why Aristotle's mistakes were held by people for centuries until they were actually tested.

The upshot is the the Socratic method can help us determine what our opinions are, but is very poor about finding knowledge about the real world.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It can be a good start, especially in determining how we want to define things.

But it has a major drawback: it often arrives at conclusions that seem plausible, even intuitive, but are simply wrong when actually tested. And it has no way to correct itself without essentially doing the scientific method.

For example, the Aristotelian idea that heavy things fall faster than lighter things seems reasonable. If the Socratic method is used in the absence of observation and testing, it can *and did* get this wrong. Furthermore, without observation and testing, there is no way for a Socratic dialog to determine it is wrong. This is one reason why Aristotle's mistakes were held by people for centuries until they were actually tested.

The upshot is the the Socratic method can help us determine what our opinions are, but is very poor about finding knowledge about the real world.

The Socratic method basically doesn't have an end point, for even conclusions reached are up for reexamination and questioning.

 

[Polymath257]

The Socratic method basically doesn't have an end point, for even conclusions reached are up for reexamination and questioning.

And without observation and testing, they are assured to go wrong and stay that way.

The Socratic method is also a really good way to form hypotheses that can be tested.

 

[Left Coast]

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Science is also useful if you want to torture humans. Useful is subjective and have no objective referent.

Once we set a goal, that becomes the referent we measure against. Think about playing chess. If you don't care about winning, true, there's no "objective" reason to want to win, I suppose. Once we agree to play however, if your goal is to win, there are objectively superior ways to achieve that goal given the rules of chess.

So it's true, if someone doesn't care about the well-being of themselves or anyone else, then there's no "objective" reason for them to care, I guess. Fortunately, most of us do care to at least some degree. So given that mutual goal, we can definitely derive objectively preferable ways to interact for our mutual well-being.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And without observation and testing, they are assured to go wrong and stay that way.

The Socratic method is also a really good way to form hypotheses that can be tested.

Knowledge isn't necessarily right or wrong. Even knowing what is wrong can help to better understand the world. Probing people's minds with a bombardment of questions revolving around a given topic is a good way to harvest knowledge. And, right or wrong, the acquired knowledge can help understand people.