Is Science the Best Method to Understand the World?

[Left Coast]

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.

Have you ever asked a professional scientist about investigating God? They'll inform you it can't be done. God is beyond the scope of science. That's why I asked you for your ideas.

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.

How would you do it, then?

 

[Left Coast]

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

In all of that, I did not read a non-scientific method that gives us a more accurate understanding of the world than science. Do you have one?

 

[nPeace]

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?

We? Did you read the text with the answer to that question?

Which observations have been made of the spirit world?

How did you arrive at observations of the spirit world? I don't recall saying that we observe the spirit world?
However, again, the texts I link contain the pertinent answers to your questions. What does the Bible say?

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

The Bible can be tested scientifically, and again, an investigation of its truthfulness is gained as was described in the text I quoted.

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?

Are you saying I cannot experiment, test and observe things unless I am in a lab, or wearing a coat?

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

Please explain what evidence is... in detail please.

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.

I can do that in my back yard. Can't I?

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.

Good. I mentioned that. What do we expect, to find, if something is supposed to be true.

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.

It doesn't seem that many here view things that way.

 

[nPeace]

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.

There you go. Hubris.
I have never known something that is known to be the best opinion, or explanation. ...and I have never known a known that can be unknown.
Those "some things" as I said, are basically nothing, since when you think you know, you don't really know.
So let's say you know 0.001% of what's there to be known.

My point is, and was, and still is, that it's hubris to think that you know everything (relative) to the point someone will say, we can know when energy enters and leaves our Milky Way. Hubris.

They should be able to know the following, if they can know, but they don't.

How much do we know about the human brain? Several scientific initiatives are specifically aimed at developing a deeper understanding of how the brain works
The human body on the whole is fascinating, but If there is one part that is even more interesting, its the brain. This is our most important organ, the one that controls Just about everything that happens in our bodes and that gives unique and extraoranary capabllites to each one of us. The bralh is so complcated that now, desplte impressive strides in technology, there are still lots of things that we don't understand about it we don't know how much it actually determines personality, whether the need to sleep is to consolidate certain memories: what process and location is for the storage of memories, or how perception works and just what it is.

This lack of understanding of how the brain works has hindered the search for cures for degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer, despite the many attempts to improve quallty of life and delay the progress of the dlsease.

 

[Left Coast]

@nPeace, you and I seem to continually have some sort of bizarre inability to communicate clearly to one another. I think we're going to have to call it quits on dialogues like this unless we do it in some sort of live format where there's immediate back and forth, like the Discord chatroom. If you'd like an individual conversation, happy to have one, PM me anytime. Otherwise, take care.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

But to harvest knowledge requires that it be there. There is no way to intuit that heavy things and light things fall at the same rate. That takes observation. There is no way to argue that DNA is the genetic material unless you have observational data. There is no way to know there are other galaxies unless you have observations.

The Socratic method is only good for those things where there is already plenty of data. Like I said, it is good for finding hypotheses to then test. And in that role it can be useful in the Scientific method.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But to harvest knowledge requires that it be there. There is no way to intuit that heavy things and light things fall at the same rate. That takes observation. There is no way to argue that DNA is the genetic material unless you have observational data. There is no way to know there are other galaxies unless you have observations.

The Socratic method is only good for those things where there is already plenty of data. Like I said, it is good for finding hypotheses to then test. And in that role it can be useful in the Scientific method.

My claim was a counter to your claim the scientific method is the only way to gain knowledge. We learned a lot without it. Even some ancient societies worked out some pretty good methods of charting the movement of the cosmic bodies above them, and without science and without knowing about gravity, Newtonian physics or even what stars are some of them made some pretty good and accurate charting methods. And they often did it as part of a religious thing to boot. And all it really was was basic observation and taking notes. Science does that, but so does just about everyone attempting to preserve things in words.

 

[Left Coast]

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.

It's true that if you don't care about anyone else's well-being, or even your own, science (or frankly, anything else) can't "objectively" tell you why you should. Thankfully, most of us do care about ourselves and at least a few other people, if not many people. And we recognize, through empirical observations and experimentation, that pure selfishness is actually against our own self-interest.

 

[rational experiences]

..................................consciousness not making any comments as words are used by humans for human science purpose as a human. No answer is relative as words falsify natural existence, so is contrary to its use, explanations by human choice.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

So how do you know that science is the best method to understand the world? I don't want your opinion. I want evidence! How do you know that...; i.e. evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Use correct words. It is inter-subjective as shared subjectivity, not objective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In all of that, I did not read a non-scientific method that gives us a more accurate understanding of the world than science. Do you have one?

The standard for accurate is subjective. Accurate to what standard? They are subjective like the rest of us and they like science. So what?

 

[Heyo]

The Socratic method is only good for those things where there is already plenty of data. Like I said, it is good for finding hypotheses to then test. And in that role it can be useful in the Scientific method.

cc: @Shadow Wolf
The Socratic method is not a method to gain knowledge about the physical world. It is a communication method to find agreement about a philosophical question.
It can be applied to the process of scientific inquiry between two scientists to get clarity about a measurement or a hypothesis and become part of the scientific method but in itself it is not bound to nor useful for gaining knowledge about the physical world.

 

[Heyo]

There you go. Hubris.
I have never known something that is known to be the best opinion, or explanation. ...and I have never known a known that can be unknown.
Those "some things" as I said, are basically nothing, since when you think you know, you don't really know.
So let's say you know 0.001% of what's there to be known.

My point is, and was, and still is, that it's hubris to think that you know everything (relative) to the point someone will say, we can know when energy enters and leaves our Milky Way. Hubris.

They should be able to know the following, if they can know, but they don't.

How much do we know about the human brain? Several scientific initiatives are specifically aimed at developing a deeper understanding of how the brain works
The human body on the whole is fascinating, but If there is one part that is even more interesting, its the brain. This is our most important organ, the one that controls Just about everything that happens in our bodes and that gives unique and extraoranary capabllites to each one of us. The bralh is so complcated that now, desplte impressive strides in technology, there are still lots of things that we don't understand about it we don't know how much it actually determines personality, whether the need to sleep is to consolidate certain memories: what process and location is for the storage of memories, or how perception works and just what it is.

This lack of understanding of how the brain works has hindered the search for cures for degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer, despite the many attempts to improve quallty of life and delay the progress of the dlsease.

This is called a black-and white fallacy.
You are arguing that because I can't walk to Paris in one go, I can't walk to the pharmacy.

 

[thomas t]

Have you ever asked a professional scientist about investigating God? They'll inform you it can't be done. God is beyond the scope of science.

no, actually I didn't ask a professional scientist.
However, I don't believe them that it can't be done. For me, they can't back up their claim that God is undetectable. The so-called hiddenness of God is a claim that, in my opinion, is a faith rather than a fact.
Even if I can't tell them how to proceed if they would endeavor to seek God.
They may be brilliant scientists in their fields but what gives them the right to decide that a loving Creator-God can't be detected using science?

Happy birthday.

 

[Augustus]

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.

Often =/= always

Myth is often a way of transmitting a general truth: The story of Icarus is a warning against the human tendency towards hubris for example.

These truth in these myths was grounded in human experience.

It is a "hypothesis" that was verified by a "rudimentary scientific method" - human experience.

We can say successfully pissing into a toilet is "science" as it involves a 'hypothesis' about distance, angle, pressure, gravity, etc. but personally I don't think it is particularly useful to demarcate science as being basically any activity that derives experientially from human interaction with the world.

 

[PureX]

It's true that if you don't care about anyone else's well-being, or even your own, science (or frankly, anything else) can't "objectively" tell you why you should. Thankfully, most of us do care about ourselves and at least a few other people, if not many people. And we recognize, through empirical observations and experimentation, that pure selfishness is actually against our own self-interest.

I don't think we recognize that through empirical observations and experimentation, at all. As these would quite clearly lead us to the conclusion that self-preservation is more effectively served the less inclusive it is. To expand that inclusion to 'others' requires faith in ideals that are not immediately effective, and can often be personally counter-productive.

 

[Heyo]

They may be brilliant scientists in their fields but what gives them the right to decide that a loving Creator-God can't be detected using science?

The fact that they are scientists. They know their tools and they know what can be done with them.

 

[thomas t]

The fact that they are scientists. They know their tools and they know what can be done with them.

so let's consider there is an almighty God.
He sees all the scientists and their great efforts. He also sees their great competences.
Lets assume for a moment he wants to be detected in December 2020 by scientists using the scientific method, and not before - would he succeed?
I mean the scientists are very good at knowing their tools and at knowing what can be done with them.

Nevertheless, God is almighty. Would he have a chance?

 

[nPeace]

@nPeace, you and I seem to continually have some sort of bizarre inability to communicate clearly to one another. I think we're going to have to call it quits on dialogues like this unless we do it in some sort of live format where there's immediate back and forth, like the Discord chatroom. If you'd like an individual conversation, happy to have one, PM me anytime. Otherwise, take care.

Well you did ask.
However, if you are not willing to accept the answers, that will certainly create a problem, and if the answers are in are primarily in a dreaded book, that makes it even more hard to swallow.
If you are blaming me for an inability to communicate clearly, I do not consider that to be fair. I think it's more an inability to understand, and the reason is because the language is a language you will never understand, unless you be willing to consider it with two things - an open mind, and an open heart.

I never like to leave a thread with anyone claiming I am not clear, since clarity is one of my primary interests, along with simplicity. So please listen carefully. I shall only say this once.

The spirit world deals with the spirit, and what is spiritual.
In order to know of, and accept it, one has to connect to the spirit, or be connected.
The one who gives the spirit which allows us to connect, is Jehovah God. He gives it to those who has the heart deserving of it - humility.
(Psalm 138:6) . . .Though Jehovah is high, he takes note of the humble, But the haughty he knows only from a distance.
One who is humble will recognize their spiritual need.
(Matthew 5:3) . . .Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need. . .
Unlike our physical need which are filled with physical things, our spiritual needs are filled by spiritual things - the Bible is a product of holy spirit (2 Timothy 3:16) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God. . . (2 Peter 1:21) . . .men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit. . . prayer is communicating with God by spirit... gifts of understanding, wisdom, and the new personality (Galatians 5:22, 23) . . .the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law. . . all given by God.

Spoiler: Knowledge and Wisdom of a spiritual nature

(Proverbs 2:1-13) 1 My son, if you accept my sayings And treasure up my commandments, 2 By making your ear attentive to wisdom And inclining your heart to discernment; 3 Moreover, if you call out for understanding And raise your voice for discernment; 4 If you keep seeking for it as for silver, And you keep searching for it as for hidden treasures; 5 Then you will understand the fear of Jehovah, And you will find the knowledge of God. 6 For Jehovah himself gives wisdom; From his mouth come knowledge and discernment. 7 He treasures up practical wisdom for the upright; He is a shield for those walking in integrity. 8 He watches over the paths of justice, And he will guard the way of his loyal ones. 9 Then you will understand what is righteous and just and fair, The entire course of what is good. 10 When wisdom enters your heart And knowledge becomes pleasant to your soul, 11 Thinking ability will keep watch over you, And discernment will safeguard you, 12 To save you from the bad course, From the man speaking perverse things, 13 From those leaving the upright paths To walk in the ways of darkness,

Clearly, these are things science cannot look into. However, the effects can be see, and persons can be moved to investigate, and acquire them, if they are not resisting, by their biased leaning toward the works of the flesh, which are in opposition to the spirit, and they are not humble, nor willing to humble themselves, nor are they thirsting for righteousness, nor hungry for the truth, nor honest with themselves.
These thing block them from the spirit world.
I again refer you to examine the texts I quoted previously. They are pertinent.
I'll refer you again to a primary one.

Apart from the limits of science to go where spiritual men go, science cannot produce the new personality which spiritual men acquire. Again, I refer you to where I mentioned that.

So when you ask the questions you ask, if you don't understand, it not because of the communication, but understanding what is being communicated. We are speaking two different languages. I understand yours. You don't understand mine.

So when I say things like experiment, test, observe, etc., and you think of them in only one way, that presents a problem.
For example, evidence is not only scientific evidence. See here.
However, one does not have to know of the spirit world, to get that evidence. It is available to all - even children.

So, when we ask questions, like the ones I asked earlier - 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?, the question is, what do we come up with? What does the evidence show?

When I spoke of observation, did you take note of what was observed? For some strange reason, you figured I spoke of observing the spirit world, when I showed that we observe evidence for the spirit world.
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. . .

So. I think I am being as clear as mud.
However, clearly, there is a language barrier. Crossing it, is not going to be easy... for you.