Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Laboratory >

Is science the best source of knowledge about the world

13:17 / 10.11.04

I was just looking to start some conversation and I also want to see what others think. I say yes. tell me why or why I'm an idiot to think so.

Cheap. Easy. Cruel.

13:53 / 10.11.04

That is a rather loaded question. It all depends on your point of view. From my personal point of view, it is. It tells me how things work and helps me make sense of what happens in my daily life. Psychology has helped me to understand most of the people in my life and why they act the way they do (well, that and just shutting up and listening to them). So for me, I would say yes.

For my mother it is an entirely different situation. She would say that the Bible is the best source of knowledge about the world. I am sure that some would say other religions are the best source, some others would say that popular media is.

14:47 / 10.11.04

From a metaphysical point of view the fundamental assumptions that underpin science are no more valid than the tautologies of religion or anything else. Even truisms like '1=1' demand, on a very basic level, the same level of faith as belief in God does, and I imaagine that in the same way that such a truism seems to constantly prove itself to me, so too does God seem to prove his existence to other people, on a daily basis.

I think that if you're investigating the value of science as a source of knowledge about the world you have to first ask exactly what 'knowledge' is, and what 'the world' is also.

Practically speaking though, the question of what is the 'best' source of knowledge simply becomes one of which source of knowledge is the most effective to work with, and in terms of that science beats clairvoience, divination, trusting the bible or asking your mum, hands down, every time.

17:54 / 10.11.04

"Even truisms like '1=1' demand, on a very basic level, the same level of faith as belief in God does, and I imaagine that in the same way that such a truism seems to constantly prove itself to me, so too does God seem to prove his existence to other people, on a daily basis."

nicely said.

18:39 / 10.11.04

I think the scientific method is perhaps the best way of establishing certain objective commonalities within our shared reality. On an individual level, however, individual experience is inevitably more powerful in shaping one's outlook.

21:06 / 10.11.04

Even truisms like '1=1' demand, on a very basic level, the same level of faith as belief in God does

Seriously? A belief in an all knowing, all powerful, benevolent, supernatural being is no more of a leap than 1=1?
Are there people who believe in God, but don't believe that 1=1?

22:11 / 10.11.04

It's not really a question of which assumption is more intuitive. I agree that the idea of a God requires considerably more imagination that the concept '1=1'.

Each way of looking at the world requires an absolute (or multiple absolutes) to build everything else up from. Looking as such a simple mathematical statement it seems logically absurd to claim that '1' may or may not equal '1' - but if you had already taken the existence of God as your absolute, then you could reasonably claim that '1' does not equal '1' if God does not want it to.

The reason I equate the two abolute concepts is that once you have that essential belief in one of these concepts, every argument that follows from it can be used to justify that belief. I have no doubt that there have been periods where the existence of God was condsidered to be as much as a truism as '1=1', and I think that the erosion of that belief in modern times should serve to make us wonder what other fundamental concepts we should question. In much the same way that advances in technology and philosophical thought resulted in people rejecting belief in God, it is quite posible that eventual advances in mathematics or physics could come across some mind-bending anomaly somewhere which disproves the assumption that '1=1'.

But despite the fact that either of these concepts can in some ways be questioned, belief in them as absolutes requires complete faith to utilise. The scientific method is pretty useless if one doesn't have that basic '1=1' concept to work with, just as attemping to understand the world through religeos teachings would be pretty futile if one did not believe in God.

Sorry if I've made any major mistakes, repeated or contradicted myself in there. I'm not really sure of where I'm going sometimes...

02:42 / 11.11.04

I don't think the major difficulty in the question is the word 'knowledge;' it is the word 'best.' So, for instance, methodological science might not be the best source of knowledge for everyday activities. Empirical science is also useless for ethical theory. Aesthetic judgments rarely rely upon such sciences. And the possibility of empirical science might be grounded on metaphysical assumptions without which empirical science could be somewhat meaningless.

And even for the kinds of questions empirical science is asking, the testimony of scientists is usually a far better source of knowledge than actually doing the experiments. This is not because it is more reliable but because the amount of knowledge one can acquire by trusting in the testimony of the scientists far exceeds the amount of knowledge one can acquire by doing science.

Now, if, by science, we include the testimony of scientists, then I am prepared to agree that science, concerning those topics it is qualified to address, has the greatest legitimate authority of all possible sources of knowledge. But that, concerning those topics it is not qualified to address, other methods of enquiry have the greatest authority.

18:32 / 11.11.04

i'd rather think of it in terms of: the best way of gaining knowledge about the world, is science.

22:56 / 11.11.04

I would say that the scientific method is thebest way for me to interact with and understand my world. My world involves daily troubleshooting and repair skills, clear, logical thought, and an understanding of basic mechanical functions. Praying to a god won't fix your Playstation 2.

Conversely my world leaves little room for gods (sorry ganesh), stigmata, magic, fairies, potions, toadstool rings, etc., and no amount of critical thought will allow me to fly without wings or source of propultion.

Some people do live on a flat earth.

I think maybe this response would fit better in Headshop, but this thread could easily fit there, too.