Based on another thread...
Follow along with me here, while I present the opening statements for this discussion.
First off the point of this thread for my part is not to call science and the empirical method into doubt, but to hopefully illustrate a point.
A good number of materialists and skeptics often point to science as a verification method for information in an exclusive way. Claiming that science alone constitutes valid evidence or proofs to establish a premise.
My question is: isn't this a belief?
What exactly gives the impression that science alone should be accepted as valid for verifying information? What argues for that?
On what authority should this be accepted?
Note: I am not trying to throw science out the window here. I am trying to determine why the premise of science alone as evidence should be accepted.
If this authority for science alone as evidence is science itself- isn't this coming near the kind of circular argumentation fundamentalists are often accused of with their scriptures?
Science is a sole authority because science establishes it and shows it?
It has often struck me as odd that this isn't called into question more. This premise of science alone as valid for evidence.
Sure science carries evidence. That is not what I am debating, for my part. I am asking why we should accept that science exclusively verifies information? Science exclusively?
I've never actually come across any one who says that the scientific method is the only way. Indeed I haven't even come across scientists themselves who have said this. I've seen people say it's the most reliable or the best we have come up with so far.
But never the exclusivity that you seem to be referring to.
Can you please name any examples?
Now me personally. I'm an idiot layman. It would be sheer arrogance on my part to pretend to know anything about science.
So if I wish to learn something about biology I will not go to a priest or rabbi or even a pundit, unless they happen to have a PHD or something in Biology. Otherwise I will go to a biologist. If I wish to learn something about history the best option is a historian.
If I wish to learn philosophy or spiritual practices then I will consult various religious leaders.
Here's the thing though. Even as a child the scientists would encourage their "audience" to test the results themselves. We had literal children's shows dedicated to this very premise (backyard science for example.)
Very few religious leaders encourage this, which makes me skeptical of them. And I was raised in a very theistic household. Though probably less restrictive than the Abrahamic variety, generally speaking of course.
In religion results may vary. How well this is accepted or explained away also varies. Some liberal Christians might relish the chance to question their faith. Some Muslims might not want to do such a thing.
Many Dharmics generally just let people come to their own conclusions and that's just how they roll.
Science is not a matter of faith, but for lazy layman such as myself it is more helpful to learn science from actual Scientists than philosophers all the same.
