Why do some people think that Science is the only source of knowledge?

[Tyrion]

However, I think far too many people believe that empiricism is the only sure epistemological method (bar maths and logic).

If one makes a proposition about the objective, external reality, what is the method to use to decide the “truth”-value of that proposition? I know only one such method: “to compare the proposition to the external reality”. If the proposition correctly describes reality, then it is “true”. Otherwise, it is “false”. The process of comparison implies “empiricism”. What else?

Its obviously a problematic position, since we have all sorts of knowledge that are not based on these methods.

What would those “all sorts of” methods be? (We are only dealing with the objective reality, not the subjective assessments about it. A subjective proposition; for example: “chocolate ice-cream is better than vanilla” does not have an objective “true/false” value associated with it. As the saying goes: “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”.)

 

[inocente]

The above point should be taken as proof that you have no idea what you are talking about. Let’s distinguish between Jenner’s world view, his ethical position and his knowledge of science and medicine. Jenner’s knowledge of science and medicine, in and of itself, did not lead him to pursue finding and testing a vaccine against smallpox. If Jenner’s ethical and metaphysical views had been different, the very same scientific facts could have led him to develop, alternatively, deadlier biological strains of the virus. There is nothing in the science that logically tells a scientist what he ought or ought not do with the knowledge s/he possesses. It is their metaphysical perspective and ethical beliefs stemming from their metaphysics that leads scientists towards what they “ought” to do with their knowledge gained. This is a very basic point and you keep missing or ignoring it. Either you are being intentionally daft on this (ignorance is bliss, I guess) and therefore think your point of view is immune to critique or you honestly do not get it, which, coincidentally, could be why you don’t see value in philosophy, i.e., you don’t understand what philosophy actually is.

There you go again with your extravagance of assumptions. But you even quoted me: “In 1796 medic and scientist Edward Jenner tested the first ever vaccine, against smallpox, and in 1980 the World Health Organization declared smallpox dead. In 200 years lots of “ought” with nary a philosopher on the horizon.”

In other words, over 200 years lots and lots of people all over the world used the tools produced by science to eradicate smallpox. Few if any were philosophers of ethics. They did what was right, not because some philosopher said they ought but rather despite any philosopher saying they ought. Thus proving that philosophers have nothing to do with what we ought and ought not do. Although of course we are increasingly understanding scientifically why we have oughts and ought nots.

What increasingly looks like your only argument is to call anything and everything metaphysics and philosophy, like some people say they’ve been to university and then after a pause add “the university of life”. I might as well argue that we all do science because we taste what we’re cooking to decide whether to add more salt.

If we’re talking about what three-year olds do in playschool rather that the academic disciplines then we may as well stop, it’s just a waste of pixels.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Your assumptions sent you off on a wild goose chase.

All pursuits may be valuable. But the OP is about sources of knowledge, so I’m not debating whether Bach is better than Beyonce or any such subjective opinion.

My case is that the progress made by science has demonstrated conclusively that human reason in the absence of evidence is highly fallible. Therefore most if not all philosophers, who don’t test their ideas against objective evidence, are almost certainly not producing anything of lasting value, they are just adding to the confusion of competing -isms, they are at most one-hit wonders.

Progress is made in understanding the physical world by evidential means. That does not entail that the physical world alone is a worthy or even the only subject of knowledge. Your claim is fine as far as the physical world is concerned, but rests on the assumption that no other knowledge is possible or worth the time. You provide no reason to buy into that presupposition.

 

[inocente]

This, too, is problematic. How do you begin to formulate personal beliefs without any criteria except that they do not conflict with evidence? Surely, there must be some positive non-evidential way for you to determine the truth value of personal beliefs? Otherwise, almost anything could be subscribed to according to this “personal philosophy.” Absence of evidence is not a reliable basis upon which to formulate personal “supernatural” beliefs - which seem to be part of your belief system. It is possible to dream up all kinds of supernatural beings that are immune to evidential discredit, but that does not mean such beliefs are acceptable.
There must be some other non-evidential criteria by which you begin to formulate and then judge the adequacy of your personal beliefs and that, most people, except you, would call doing “philosophy” which is the very important enterprise of adding logical structure to one’s reasoning, so thinking does not “go madly off in all directions,” untethered.
Contrary to your assertions, you must tacitly “do philosophy” at some level, you just don’t recognize that you do.

Yes, people believe in all kinds of things, fairies, ghosts, alien abductions. Not simply in absence of evidence but often despite the evidence. But how did you get from me saying “personal beliefs are essential unless they conflict with evidence, then evidence wins” to assuming I said beliefs can’t be formed without conformance to evidence?

This is dead simple stuff. You need fuel for the car. It might be cheaper at the next gas station. Or cheaper still at the one after that. Or if you wait until tomorrow the price may go down. But you sooner or later have to form a belief, and take the hit if you were wrong.

We don’t have to be doctors in triage and soldiers in a fire-fight to form beliefs without sufficient evidence, we all do it all day every day. But where those beliefs conflict with evidence we can either learn from our mistakes or keep repeating them.

And I am using philosophy to mean the academic discipline, not every possible thought. On the basis that it’s a rational number no doubt you’ll be calling 42 a philosopher next.

 

[mek42]

That which I choose to believe is not knowledge. I must always consider that I may be wrong about what I choose to believe. Why do so many people confuse faith with knowledge? It is from this confusion that so called holy wars and much other evil stem.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That which I choose to believe is not knowledge. I must always consider that I may be wrong about what I choose to believe. Why do so many people confuse faith with knowledge? It is from this confusion that so called holy wars and much other evil stem.

As opposed to, say, wishy-washy individuals who cannot commit to anything, lack courage of their convictions and quickly flee when the going gets tough? On what is loyalty and courage based if you can be wrong about everything?

The things I am most certain of are not those that stand and fall by evidence.

 

[mek42]

As opposed to, say, wishy-washy individuals who cannot commit to anything, lack courage of their convictions and quickly flee when the going gets tough? On what is loyalty and courage based if you can be wrong about everything?

The things I am most certain of are not those that stand and fall by evidence.

To choose to belief something while accepting that you do not know that which you believe seems like a stronger act of faith than needing to convince yourself it is known before choosing to believe.

 

[polytropos]

To choose to belief something while accepting that you do not know that which you believe seems like a stronger act of faith than needing to convince yourself it is known before choosing to believe.

Incidentally this statement applies to both sides. Christians do not know everything about God’s will, but they believe in God’s will. Atheists do not know everything about natural phenomena, but they believe in philosophical naturalism.

 

[Peter_Plato]

To choose to belief something while accepting that you do not know that which you believe seems like a stronger act of faith than needing to convince yourself it is known before choosing to believe.

That is not what faith means to me. For me faith is not about the strength or weakness of beliefs – it is more about fidelity, loyalty and trust – which is in line with the traditional Jewish and Catholic view.

Fidelity - ORIGIN: late Middle English : from Old French fidelite or Latin fidelitas, from fidelis ‘faithful,’ from fides ‘faith.’

My experience has been that God works with us to come to trust him more and more as we follow him. Loyalty and fidelity beget trust and faith along a very reasonable path. I am not sure what an “act of faith” is. Faith is a virtue, or in Aristotelian terms, a power of the soul to remain steadfast. It is not an act, but rather a capacity or empowerment. Faithful acts may follow from the virtue, and so they might be “acts from faith,” but that does not mean they are simply acts contrary to reason or contrary to reasoned beliefs. I don’t think there is anything virtuous in acting contrary to deeply held and reasoned convictions.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

That is not what faith means to me. For me faith is not about the strength or weakness of beliefs – it is more about fidelity, loyalty and trust – which is in line with the traditional Jewish and Catholic view.

Fidelity - ORIGIN: late Middle English : from Old French fidelite or Latin fidelitas, from fidelis ‘faithful,’ from fides ‘faith.’

My experience has been that God works with us to come to trust him more and more as we follow him. Loyalty and fidelity beget trust and faith along a very reasonable path. I am not sure what an “act of faith” is. Faith is a virtue, or in Aristotelian terms, a power of the soul to remain steadfast. It is not an act, but rather a capacity or empowerment. Faithful acts may follow from the virtue, and so they might be “acts from faith,” but that does not mean they are simply acts contrary to reason or contrary to reasoned beliefs. I don’t think there is anything virtuous in acting contrary to deeply held and reasoned convictions.

Bingo!

Took the words from my mouth, Peter.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

To choose to belief something …

one of these days i need to understand how one 'chooses to believe." I can understand how one can provisionally act as though something is true, but the belief/conviction part isn’t volitional.

 

[Peter_Plato]

one of these days i need to understand how one 'chooses to believe." I can understand how one can provisionally act as though something is true, but the belief/conviction part isn’t volitional.

There is a difference between the sources of belief that needs to be considered. If the ground of belief or understanding is, in a sense, static or inflexible like the causal physical order then there is an expectation that once truth about the physical order has been obtained and verified, then one’s trust in or conviction about that truth will follow suit and be unchanging and not volitional.

However, if the ground of one’s trust is a free agent of some kind, then one must form that trust as a kind of loyalty to the agent, not to the facts about the agent. If it is only to the “facts about” the agent then there is no intimate connection with the agent. One does not “know” the agent directly, but only indirectly through facts “about” the agent. That is an impersonal kind of knowledge. When direct personal knowledge of the other person is formed over a period and trust established, the consistency of the other person leads to loyalty and fidelity that can be stronger than “apparent” facts about the person. When these are in conflict, direct knowledge can and should supersede indirect information, given that the person has merited that kind of loyalty and trust.

We are talking about two different realities: inanimate and personal. You might believe or understand inanimate facts, but personal knowledge of other living, volitional agents is of a very different order. The intentions of personal beings can change and therefore trust can be broken based upon the free volitional choices of the other. That is why faith is more about loyalty or fidelity than it is about “belief” when it comes to God.

 

[tonyrey]

Nor does it matter that** Karl Marx’s dialectical materialism has changed the history of the world because, after all, it’s just another of those (supposedly useless) philosophical **theories.

It is worth adding that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not based on scientific but on philosophical principles.

Science is intrinsically amoral and agnostic because it is restricted to sense data.

 

[inocente]

It is worth adding that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not based on scientific but on philosophical principles.

Relativism, nihilism, hedonism, etc. are also based on philosophical principles. Marxism has been claimed on this thread as philosophy. Schopenhauer was antisemitic. The Nazis used some of Nietzsche’s philosophy.

Philosophical principles = do whatever you like in the knowledge that you can use a philosopher somewhere to make it sound principled.

The UDHR is surely based on something far more substantial.

btw, do you think none of the UHDR is based on Christ’s teaching, or if so are you calling His principles mere philosophy, hence Christ is merely a philosopher?

 

[catholictiger]

Probably because of kant.

 

[tonyrey]

It is worth adding that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not based on scientific but on philosophical principles.Relativism, nihilism, hedonism, etc. are also based on philosophical principles.

 

[inocente]

Marxism is based on dialectical materialism.

No correcto. Dialectical materialism was derived from Marxism, Marx never used the term.

Relativism, nihilism, hedonism, etc. are also based on philosophical principles. Marxism has been claimed on this thread as philosophy. Schopenhauer was antisemitic. The Nazis used some of Nietzsche’s philosophy.

Philosophical principles = do whatever you like in the knowledge that you can use a philosopher somewhere to make it sound principled.
tonyrey;10882420:

That statement reveals misunderstanding of the nature of philosophy and metaphysics in particular.

How? Please teach me.

btw, do you think none of the UHDR is based on Christ’s teaching, or if so are you calling His principles mere philosophy, hence Christ is merely a philosopher?
tonyrey;10882420:

The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not scientific but philosophical. They are based on the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father in heaven.

Then logically you are claiming that Christ is a mere philosopher and is not God, or else you have downgraded God to the status of mere philosopher.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No correcto. Dialectical materialism was derived from Marxism, Marx never used the term.

How? Please teach me.

Then logically you are claiming that Christ is a mere philosopher and is not God, or else you have downgraded God to the status of mere philosopher.

Your logic here puzzles me. Why can’t God be a philosopher? Why can’t Christ be a philosopher? Philosophy is love of wisdom. There are a number of Old Testament books devoted to wisdom. There were many early church Fathers who were philosophers or used philosophy to demonstrate that the Gospel is eminently reasonable and consistent.

You are taking some narrow, modernistic view of philosophy and claiming God would not go there. The problem is with your narrow view and not with the options available to God. His options are endless.

Besides, logically speaking it is possible to be something without being merely that. I can be someone who carves wood but that does not entail I am “merely” a wood carver and can’t also be a musician, for instance. What I am or could be is multifaceted. Christ could have been a philosopher without being constrained to being only that. Just as the claim is that he emptied himself and became a human does not mean he was, in your words, “a mere” human. Unless two things are logically contradictory it is logically possible to be both without infringing the law of non-contradiction. Christ could have been a philosopher and still have been more than that, God, for example. It is only your negative thoughts about philosophy that make you think otherwise.

 

[Phil_Marinus]

Must we make ones faith so complicated…

 

[inocente]

Your logic here puzzles me. Why can’t God be a philosopher? Why can’t Christ be a philosopher? Philosophy is love of wisdom. There are a number of Old Testament books devoted to wisdom. There were many early church Fathers who were philosophers or used philosophy to demonstrate that the Gospel is eminently reasonable and consistent.

You are taking some narrow, modernistic view of philosophy and claiming God would not go there. The problem is with your narrow view and not with the options available to God. His options are endless.

Besides, logically speaking it is possible to be something without being merely that. I can be someone who carves wood but that does not entail I am “merely” a wood carver and can’t also be a musician, for instance. What I am or could be is multifaceted. Christ could have been a philosopher without being constrained to being only that. Just as the claim is that he emptied himself and became a human does not mean he was, in your words, “a mere” human. Unless two things are logically contradictory it is logically possible to be both without infringing the law of non-contradiction. Christ could have been a philosopher and still have been more than that, God, for example. It is only your negative thoughts about philosophy that make you think otherwise.

God’s not in our image, we’re in His image.

Please refer to 1 Cor 1. If Christ is a philosopher why does Paul ask where is the philosopher of this age? I guess the possibilities are (a) Paul got Christ badly wrong, or (b) Paul was having a crisis of faith that day, or (c) Christ is God.

Call me old-fashioned but I’ll go with (c).