You can't have perfect knowledge through science

[Madhuri]

Well the messenger should be experiencing a higher taste of Love of God and therefore be transcendental to material desire. The message should be based on scripture and not concocted.

One characteristic that was emphasised to me growing up is that a bonafide Master is always pointing us to God, not to himself. A fraud acts in ways that lead to his/her own material benefit.

But it is easy to make mistakes and be taken in by a false guru. There are so many frauds with so many disciples that proves how easy it is to be misled. I think the unfortunate thing is that so many people do not take the time to study their scriptures and instead are swayed by preachers. If we study the scriptures, we can be better prepared to approach and acknowledge a great Master.

 

[I-Ching]

That would be easy enough to do, but you're the one who asserted the claim. You should be able to support your claim, unless your intent in making it was to BS us.

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") usually describes the effort to understand how the universe works through the scientific method, with observable evidence as the basis of that understanding; a way of understanding the world through thought and experimentation.

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical andmeasurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
- Wikipeadia
I don't think this differs significantly from my statements unless you want to split hairs.

 

[Father Heathen]

Well the messenger should be experiencing a higher taste of Love of God and therefore be transcendental to material desire. The message should be based on scripture and not concocted.

...I knew this was going to fall into circular logic.

Again, upon what evidence and reason should we trust that messengers and scripture are genuine? As previously stated, anyone can make claims regarding the divine. I can say that I'm a messenger of god, and then I can put whatever words I want into god's mouth.

 

[Tristesse]

Science is based on creating theories from empiric data. That empiric data is of course gather with our senses. The objective of science is to understand reality, well more to exploit reality. You're welcome to find some references that contradict that.

Well, considering the senses are all we have, we have to rely on them. And for the most part they tend to be reliable.

The problem with the OP, besides the obvious bald assertions you make. Is that you're claiming that science is flawed because we have to rely on our senses which are flawed (I'll ignore the fact that you're over simplifying the "senses" to achieve your conclusion) But then you go on to say, that we can rely on a higher power that tells us whats true.

Don't we have to rely on our senses to understand that a higher power is communicating with us? So, if the senses can't give us any real knowledge, as you say, then how can we trust that our senses are not being manipulated when communicating with a higher power?

 

[Sunstone]

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") usually describes the effort to understand how the universe works through the scientific method, with observable evidence as the basis of that understanding; a way of understanding the world through thought and experimentation.

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical andmeasurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
- Wikipeadia
I don't think this differs significantly from my statements unless you want to split hairs.

It does indeed differ significantly from your statement -- hairs or no hairs. Your statement claims that at least one scientific method of inquiry is asserting something is real or is reality. On the other hand, nothing in the sources you cite support your claim. You simply don't understand what you are talking about.

Besides which, your source is Wikipedia. Not exactly the best source on an issue.

 

[I-Ching]

...I knew this was going to fall into circular logic.

Again, upon what evidence and reason should we trust that messengers and scripture are genuine? As previously stated, anyone can make claims regarding the divine. I can say that I'm a messenger of god, and then I can put whatever words I want into god's mouth.

There is a three point check system guru, sadhu (holy man) and sastra(scripture) if all three say the same thing then you can accept what they say is true.

 

[atanu]

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
2) We make mistakes
3) We are in illusion
4) We cheat.

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.

I think scientific enquiry gives perfect knowledge in that its knowledge is testable, replicable and that allows correct predictions -- within scope of an enquiry.

 

[Koldo]

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
2) We make mistakes
3) We are in illusion
4) We cheat.

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.

How do you know this higher authority is a higher authority?
If we consider (1) and (3), how can we even possibly know that this higher authority really exists?
If we consider (2) and (4), how can we trust in any representative of any higher authority?

Answer these three questions.

 

[Father Heathen]

There is a three point check system guru, sadhu (holy man) and sastra(scripture) if all three say the same thing then you can accept what they say is true.

Automatonic mode, activate!

Well, I can get two buddies, declare ourselves holy men, and then come to the consensus that getting into heaven requires tithing us 75% of your income and then dancing naked for our amusement. We can even write scripture to offer as proof.

 

[I-Ching]

It does indeed differ significantly from your statement -- hairs or no hairs. Your statement claims that at least one scientific method of inquiry is asserting something is real or is reality. On the other hand, nothing in the sources you cite support your claim. You simply don't understand what you are talking about.

"the effort to understand how the universe works through the scientific method"
i said "The scientific method is based on a flawed axiom that we can know the reality through our senses". Sounds to me like you are splitting hairs. I must just be too unintelligent to understand your point, perhaps you can explain it to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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
2) We make mistakes
3) We are in illusion
4) We cheat.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by #3, but the problems you describe are problems for all ways that humans gain knowledge, not just science.

If you "hear from higher authority", this is still being filtered through your limited, imperfect senses, and you can make mistaken inferences from what you're told. Also, someone may be able to convince you that they are a "higher authority" with "perfect knowledge" when they actually aren't.

 

[I-Ching]

Automatonic mode, activate!

Well, I can get two buddies, declare ourselves holy men, and then come to the consensus that getting into heaven requires tithing us 75% of your income and then dancing naked for our amusement. We can even write scripture to offer as proof.

I think an intelligent person would be skeptical of your holiness and I doubt your "scripture" could compete with the Vedas

 

[PolyHedral]

I think an intelligent person would be skeptical of your holiness and I doubt your "scripture" could compete with the Vedas

Not if FH is 2000 years old, the original declaration has been lost to history, and only distorted second-hand accounts of his accomplishments are avaliable.

 

[I-Ching]

I'm not sure what you mean by #3, but the problems you describe are problems for all ways that humans gain knowledge, not just science.

If you "hear from higher authority", this is still being filtered through your limited, imperfect senses, and you can make mistaken inferences from what you're told. Also, someone may be able to convince you that they are a "higher authority" with "perfect knowledge" when they actually aren't.

I already explained that there is three point check system to verify the higher authority and while you may misunderstand the knowledge at least the knowledge itself is perfect. Since it comes from a perfect source. Whereas much "scientific" knowledge is inherently flawed.

 

[Sunstone]

"the effort to understand how the universe works through the scientific method"
i said "The scientific method is based on a flawed axiom that we can know the reality through our senses". Sounds to me like you are splitting hairs. I must just be too unintelligent to understand your point, perhaps you can explain it to me.

You're quoting Wikipedia when asked to quote philosophers of science, historians of science, or scientists themselves to evidence your point? Really? Wikipedia?

Well, if you're going to do that, I might as well quote my friend's little sister on the subject. She says, "Science makes no metaphysical claims about what is real or is reality". Nevertheless, you claim science does indeed make metaphysical claims about what is real or is reality. So, why do you think that's the case? What evidence do you have for your bizarre claim?

 

[Tristesse]

I already explained that there is three point check system to verify the higher authority and while you may misunderstand the knowledge at least the knowledge itself is perfect. Since it comes from a perfect source. Whereas much "scientific" knowledge is inherently flawed.

But aren't you judging that perfect source based on your senses?

 

[I-Ching]

Well, considering the senses are all we have, we have to rely on them. And for the most part they tend to be reliable.

The problem with the OP, besides the obvious bald assertions you make. Is that you're claiming that science is flawed because we have to rely on our senses which are flawed (I'll ignore the fact that you're over simplifying the "senses" to achieve your conclusion) But then you go on to say, that we can rely on a higher power that tells us whats true.

Don't we have to rely on our senses to understand that a higher power is communicating with us? So, if the senses can't give us any real knowledge, as you say, then how can we trust that our senses are not being manipulated when communicating with a higher power?

We can inquire from the Higher power to establish that we have understood correctly. But the limits of our senses can not be overcome.

 

[Tristesse]

I think an intelligent person would be skeptical of your holiness and I doubt your "scripture" could compete with the Vedas

Aw...but you see, how could their skepticism be accurate? They're using their senses, which you yourself admit are not a good pathway to knowledge.

 

[Tristesse]

We can inquire from the Higher power to establish that we have understood correctly. But the limits of our senses can not be overcome.

But aren't you using more senses to understand the higher power in the first place? So, your sollution is to use more senses to understand this higher power? But I thought you said the senses could not be fully reliable?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I already explained that there is three point check system to verify the higher authority

But your "three point check system" violates the priniciples you laid out in the OP. Or is it your position that one person can cheat or be mistaken, but two people can't?

and while you may misunderstand the knowledge at least the knowledge itself is perfect. Since it comes from a perfect source.

How could you ever deduce this? What way do you have to figure this out that isn't subject to the problems that you gave?

Whereas much "scientific" knowledge is inherently flawed.

At this point, I'd say that it's more that your understanding of science is inherently flawed. You've shown a number of false ideas about how science works and what it says.