Yes, but my question is, what method other than science has proven as reliable?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You can't have perfect knowledge through science
- Thread starter I-Ching
- Start date
Yes, but my question is, what method other than science has proven as reliable?
Me Myself
Back to my username
I guess it´s the reliablest method we have for now as communities and nations and large groups of individuals xD.
Never said otherwise. Simply stated that most of us can only aqcuire knoweldge bia our 5 senses and while science is limited to them (and this is important to be remembered) all other "knowledges" tend to be limited to them too.
Thank you for answering honestly.
I think that you are oversimplifying "the senses," however, since we both agree that science is the best method we have for understanding the world in which we live, then we must rely on our senses to carry out this method. Besides, for the most part our senses tend to be reliable.
Me Myself
Back to my username
According to themselves
But yeah, we do agree science is the best way to find grupal realities.
Thanks for relying on the honesty of my answer
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
That's not true...
Me Myself
Back to my username
Well you could also put the buddhist sixth sense of "thought" into the mix (and it would not be at all an unworthy addition) but this sixth sense would evaluate according to the intake of the previous 5.
But if you see some other variable I am overlooking, by all means enlighten me
According to themselves
But yeah, we do agree science is the best "agreed" way to find grupal realities.
Thanks for relying on the honesty of my answer
HAHA! The "senses" are not a single unit.
Me Myself
Back to my username
You affirmation, is both true and false. Please elaborate.
But by all means, at least share the joke
You affirmation, is both true and false. Please elaborate.
But by all means, at least share the joke
My objection with your statement, is that you're oversimplifying the senses. Each one of our senses is confirmed by the other, to give us a reality that is hopefully as consistent as possible. It's not perfect, but who says it has to be perfect to gain insight into reality?
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
No, I mean scientific testing doesn't always directly involve using the five (actually there are at least nine) senses, beyond reading test results. We're currently studying dark matter, parallel universes, etc without being to directly observe them. To say that science depends on the five senses means absolutely nothing.Well you could also put the buddhist sixth sense of "thought" into the mix (and it would not be at all an unworthy addition) but this sixth sense would evaluate according to the intake of the previous 5.
But if you see some other variable I am overlooking, by all means enlighten me
First what is objectivity in your own words?
Can you trust your own experiences especially when someone experiences the same thing?
If you can't even trust whatever reality is around us how can anything at all be regarded as proof? The impossibility of providing such proof makes it a fallacy especially since you use your senses to rationalized such proof.
Me Myself
Back to my username
I would say that you cannot be "certain" of reality without perfection.
Though I am sure a lot of people are "pretty *** sure" and that is good enough for this material existence anyways
Now I know you are familiarized with the terms circular logic, and it doesn´t necesarily need to be only two elements to make it circular, it could be multiple elements.
Ironically, all "knowledge" is ultimately based on both faith and circular logic xD, because if there is an end to the "why"s when you ask yourself, whatever that is taken as a definite, is that on which you have faith (cause you don´t quesiotn it) and if there is no end to the "why" then every element of your logic depends on every other element of your logic, thus having effectively created a circular logic.
Our realities are unavoidably frail when one looks at it really honestly and logically. Our own senses(5 of them + 6th that is the mind(acording to buddhism, I think it´s a nice and fitting inclusion)) tell us clearly that absolutely everything could be bull.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Well, which methods are we using if not our 5 senses might you tell me?
We couldn't know this absolutely without being able to see behind the curtain or at least be able to see that there is a curtain to see behind.
waitasec
Veteran Member
maybe your referring to the pseudosciences.The scientific method is based on a flawed axiom that we can know the reality through our senses. Unfortunately all human beings are subject to four defects:
1) Our senses are limited and imperfect sure, so?
2) We make mistakes sure, so?
3) We are in illusion speak for your self
4) We cheat. speak for your self
Due these defects we can not know the Truth through this method. In order to have perfect knowledge you must hear from higher authority. Just like if you want to know your father you have to ask your mother. You can't go to every man and test them.
3 and 4 are the very things science wants to weed out. have you heard of the concept of integrity? what's the point if science cheats? it's self defeating.
without integrity we wouldn't have these scientific breakthroughs
do you listen to a medical physician? if you do then you should think about how they got t where they are now...
I never said that you could. But why do you need absolute certainty?
Though I am sure a lot of people are "pretty *** sure" and that is good enough for this material existence anyways
Now I know you are familiarized with the terms circular logic, and it doesn´t necesarily need to be only two elements to make it circular, it could be multiple elements..
Of course I'm familiar with it. Thats why I objected to your use of "the senses."
No, knowledge is based on reasonable expectation. I don't think anybody lives there life with this absolute knowledge that you're referring to.
Well, if this existence is "bull" thats what needs to have evidence to even consider it and not simply touted as a possibilty.
Me Myself
Back to my username
To an extent. But I´ll give you an example. Tell me if this could be true:
Everything that you read is false.
Could this be true? This is an affirmation that curses itself through its own logic. this is what senses tend to do to us, show us how they are flawed. Just than instead of showing us that it is imposible that they are true (like affirmation above) they tell us that there is no reason to trust in them.
Me Myself
Back to my username
How do you objectively define as "reasonable expectation" ?
Because you have faith in this existence.
I'm speaking from my perception, what you deem reasonable might be different.
No, if I believed this existence was bull, that would require faith, because there is no evidence to suggest such a thing.