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

[Tyrion]

Obviously, you don’t get the point. The remainder of your post is just a long elaboration of yours on not getting the point.

Ah, yes, the cheapest “shot” in the books: “you don’t get it”. Oh, I get it just fine. I accept your effort to expand the “reality” to any realm of your choosing, I only request you to show your epistemology.

No, not scientists in general say that, only scientists under the spell of scientism, which is precisely what you just described. The qualifier ‘in the broadest sense’ is no remedy, since then the contentious question arises of what counts as ‘observation’ and what counts as objective ‘verification’.

That is the point I was making. The ball is in your court. Can you present your METHOD of eliminating false propositions about the “rest of reality”?

There are plenty of scientists who believe there are aspects of objective reality that we can probe neither with the tools of science nor with a broader “scientific epistemological method” as you call it (if we make it very broad, we would call it metaphysics, but you apparently despise that one – so it can’t be too broad, can it? ).

You seriously confuse “metaphysics” and “epistemology”. Metaphysics is about “what exists”, or “what is reality”? “Epistemology” is about “how do we know it”? Of these two branches, it is the epistemology what counts. Metaphysics is just baseless assumption WITHOUT epistemology. Metaphysics is NOT a method. It is just a bare hypothesis. According to your post, you are unaware of this. And you dare to try to argue that I don’t get it?

Yes, in the broadest possible sense. It means that no matter what that “objectively existing reality” might be, if you make a proposition about the nature of that reality, there needs to be some method, which finds out if that proposition is true or not. Let me help you with a few actual propositions:

1. at the conception everyone is assigned an immortal soul, and
2. also at conception, everyone is assigned a guardian angel, and
3. if you die with one unrepented mortal sin, you will be tortured forever, and
4. demons can cause certain physical illnesses, also
5. the transubstantiation of bread and wine into actual flesh and blood, even though physically they are unchanged … these are all specific claims about your purported “reality”.

Do you have an objective method to decide such questions? Method, which you can share with others, who do not swallow your a-priori assertion? Method, which does not need “revelation”? Which does not rely on some self-proclaimed authority’s unquestionable utterances? You pride yourself standing of “philosophical” ground (even though you are confused about the two major branches of philosophy, metaphysics and epistemology), so let’s see, what kind of philosophical arguments can you offer for the “truth” of these propositions.

If you have one, come out with it. If you don’t… then you are just one of those snake-oil peddlers, whose only “evidence” is: “trust me”.

I have been around the block a few times, both here and other religiously inclined boards. The same question was presented repeatedly on all of them. Not just there never was an answer, but not even an attempt was presented. I make a non-so-scientific prediction: “you will not be able to give an answer either”, and I would love to be proven incorrect in my prediction.

 

[andrewstx]

Personally I think that science teaches the truths about science and religion teaches the truths about religion and to me it should be that way.

I am as old as dirt, but I still remember reading in the St. Josephs Baltimore catechism that true religion and true science cannot contradict each other.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Personally I think that science teaches the truths about science and religion teaches the truths about religion and to me it should be that way.

That might be a little too broad. As I understand it science courses teach the provisional truths and hypothesis derived from research (which are not all necessarily correct).

There’s a wide range of thoughts and propositions that fall under the category “religion” (also consider that there are multiple religions and multiple sects within many religion). If all of the propositions of at least one religion are true then where does that put the other religions in terms of teaching truths?

I am as old as dirt, but I still remember reading in the St. Josephs Baltimore catechism that true religion and true science cannot contradict each other.

From reading this I get the impression it may have been more fitting if you had said “…and [Catholicism] teaches the truths about [Catholicism]” instead of religion. In just looking at what is taught for what happens after death there are various teachings about whether or not there is an afterlife and what impacts what happens to one in that afterlife. Not all of these teachings are compatible with each other, so it would seem not all of these can be true.

 

[inocente]

*[Rosenberg] “Scientism” is the pejorative label given to our positive view by those who really want to have their theistic cake and dine at the table of science’s bounties, too. Opponents of scientism would never charge their cardiologists or auto mechanics or software engineers with “scientism” when their health, travel plans, or Web surfing are in danger. But just try subjecting their nonscientific mores and norms, their music or metaphysics, their literary theories or politics to scientific scrutiny. The immediate response of outraged humane letters is “scientism.” *(p. 6)

[Feser] According to Rosenberg, then, unless you agree that science is the only genuine source of knowledge, you cannot consistently believe that it gives us any genuine knowledge.

Rosenberg is right: When a loved one has cancer we look to scientifically trained medics, not to faith healers and snake-oil salesmen. When it’s a question and life or death the only reality that counts is the one available to science, and it’s naïve of Feser to claim otherwise.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Rosenberg is right: When a loved one has cancer we look to scientifically trained medics, not to faith healers and snake-oil salesmen. When it’s a question and life or death the only reality that counts is the one available to science, and it’s naïve of Feser to claim otherwise.

And Feser does not claim otherwise. He does not deny the authority of science in the areas that it has authority.

 

[Al_Moritz]

You seriously confuse “metaphysics” and “epistemology”. Metaphysics is about “what exists”, or “what is reality”? “Epistemology” is about “how do we know it”? Of these two branches, it is the epistemology what counts. Metaphysics is just baseless assumption WITHOUT epistemology. Metaphysics is NOT a method.

Here we disagree. There is epistemology that does not rely on what is measurable, as science does. You despise metaphysics because it makes arguments that are not measurable.

You might counter that objective verification definitely needs to be one that is in some way (physically) measurable. But that would lead us precisely again to – scientism. Notwithstanding your claimed broader sense of ‘scientific epistemological method’.

Of course, mathematical proofs do not rely on measurement, too. But there is no mathematical proof in philosophy, even though some arguments can be presented in the language of mathematics. You have no mathematical proof for your atheism either. Your atheism relies on your stance that only a ‘scientific epistemological method’ is admissible, but this is a philosophical (or metaphysical) assumption for the validity of which you have no proof, neither in terms of mathematics nor in terms of measurement. In your own words, ‘it is just a bare hypothesis’.

Let me help you with a few actual propositions:

1. at the conception everyone is assigned an immortal soul, and
2. also at conception, everyone is assigned a guardian angel, and
3. if you die with one unrepented mortal sin, you will be tortured forever, and
4. demons can cause certain physical illnesses, also
5. the transubstantiation of bread and wine into actual flesh and blood, even though physically they are unchanged … these are all specific claims about your purported “reality”.

You are seriously confusing philosophical argument and faith. The former can only argue for the existence of God and an immaterial and thus immortal soul (as already Plato and Aristotle did, who were not what would qualify as ‘believers’), the latter is based on revelation.

Do you have an objective method to decide such questions? Method, which you can share with others, who do not swallow your a-priori assertion?

Do you have an objective method to decide on the validity of your atheism? Method, which you can share with others, who do not swallow your a-priori assertion of the sole validity of a ‘scientific epistemological method’?

 

[PetrusRomanus]

What else is there? What other methodology is there besides science?

That’s what I’m wondering. What else is there?

Spirituality, perhaps?

Obviously the Church has known things for thousands of years that people are just realizing today and that prove to be true all the time. The Church has known things infallibly about faith and morals for thousands of years that people still do not realize or understand today.

For example, the Church teaches that promiscous sex is not wise (not to mention immoral). Science teaches condoms are great and will do the trick in preventing disease and that we can still have our cake and eat it too. However, condoms do not stop HPV from being transmitted, the #1 killer of women even over AIDs. Some women that have been stricken with this and develop cervical cancer will tell you that having promiscous sex is not wise. Now, it took the experience to open a person’s eyes in this example where naturally the Church has always known this.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

Rosenberg is right: When a loved one has cancer we look to scientifically trained medics, not to faith healers and snake-oil salesmen. When it’s a question and life or death the only reality that counts is the one available to science, and it’s naïve of Feser to claim otherwise.

What about when a person is in terminal stages of cancer and there is no hope that science can provide for them (even though this “only reality that counts” and science was revealed to them by God)? Who do they turn to then?

 

[Tyrion]

Here we disagree. There is epistemology that does not rely on what is measurable, as science does.

Tell me about it, in detail. **It is precisely the question I am interested in. **

You despise metaphysics because it makes arguments that are not measurable.

I only despise the kind of metaphysics, which makes positive claims, but does not offer an objective method to substantiate its claims - in other words, which is not supported by some kind of epistemology. (Important disclaimer: atheism makes no positive metaphysical claims!)

You might counter that objective verification definitely needs to be one that is in some way (physically) measurable.

I never said that. As a matter of fact, I do not require that the “claims” should be PHYSICALLY measurable (see below *). But, of course, I demand that there should be SOME KIND of objective method to separate the true claims from the false ones. Indeed, if you claimed that your propositions cannot be verified or falsified in any way at all, then your claims would be irrelevant.

(*) Your problem is that you assert an interaction between the physical reality and that “nebulous, ill-defined, other reality”. As such there is an interface problem. At the very least, SOME part of the interaction happens in our PHYSICAL reality, and as such the “much maligned scientific method” is applicable there. So, yes, some of your claims can be “physically measured” - and every time there is an attempt to verify those claims, the result is negative.

You have no mathematical proof for your atheism either.

Since atheism does not assert any positive claims, only one negative one, it would be ridiculous to demand a “proof” for it - and you should be aware of that, too. Don’t try to “turn the table”. It does not work.

You are seriously confusing philosophical argument and faith. The former can only argue for the existence of God and an immaterial and thus immortal soul (as already Plato and Aristotle did, who were not what would qualify as ‘believers’), the latter is based on revelation.

I simply take you at your word, where you asserted that you can argue for the claims of your “alternate reality” based upon philosophical grounds. My questions were very specific claims made about that “alternate” reality. Now you say that those propositions can only be answered on “faith” and “revelation” - both of which are excluded from a philosophical discussion. In other words, you have no purely philosophical answers. Do you?

 

[JMJ_coder]

What else is there? What other methodology is there besides science?

That’s what I’m wondering. What else is there?

How about philosophy and logic for starters.

 

[JMJ_coder]

If the application of the scientific method is the only path to knowledge, then using the scientific method one should be able to prove this premise.

Hypothesis: The application of the scientific method is the only meaningful way to know something.

Challenge: Create and run an experiment to prove this hypothesis.

 

[tonyrey]

I get your point, but it may be interesting to note that radio waves are real and they can be viewed as being spirit-like. They can be easily detected. I often wondered if our spirituality was based on a special class of waves. Look at cell phones and how waves are used in their operation. Like there being 7 billion people in the world, each with their own special spirituality, each cell phone can receive its own waves. Could be that we simply did not yet invent an instrument that can detect spirits.

We don’t have to invent an instrument; we already have the power of discernment!

 

[tonyrey]

If the application of the scientific method is the only path to knowledge, then using the scientific method one should be able to prove this premise.

Hypothesis: The application of the scientific method is the only meaningful way to know something.

Challenge: Create and run an experiment to prove this hypothesis.

Very neat and complete!

 

[tonyrey]

If the application of the scientific method is the only path to knowledge, then using the scientific method one should be able to prove this premise.

Hypothesis: The application of the scientific method is the only meaningful way to know something.

Challenge: Create and run an experiment to prove this hypothesis.

Very neat and discrete!

 

[tonyrey]

What about when a person is in terminal stages of cancer and there is no hope that science can provide for them (even though this “only reality that counts” and science was revealed to them by God)? Who do they turn to then?

I wonder who is being naive… Those who stake everything on science?

 

[bsroufek]

Science is a tool, not truth itself. Science is methodology for discovering facts, perhaps.

So, belief in God is never incompatible with truth but may be incompatible with science.

Some truths are infused into people’s souls and minds by God and His angles. It is not discovered, but received, as revelation. Very unscientific but it is truth.

 

[inocente]

What about when a person is in terminal stages of cancer and there is no hope that science can provide for them (even though this “only reality that counts” and science was revealed to them by God)? Who do they turn to then?

That’s my point - it’s only when science can’t come up with the goods.

Think of it the other way round - in that life-and-death situation would you insist that praying alone would cure you, and only turn to science much later as the last resort?

Most people would think you crazy if you did, everyone these days turns to science first.

 

[inocente]

If the application of the scientific method is the only path to knowledge, then using the scientific method one should be able to prove this premise.

Hypothesis: The application of the scientific method is the only meaningful way to know something.

Challenge: Create and run an experiment to prove this hypothesis.

It’s not a useful question though.

Philosophers can’t answer meaningful challenges such as how do we eradicate smallpox from the world (which science has done), how do we put a man on the Moon (which science has done), how do we cure cancer (which science is doing).

 

[tonyrey]

It’s not a useful question though.

Philosophers can’t answer meaningful challenges such as how do we eradicate smallpox from the world (which science has done), how do we put a man on the Moon (which science has done), how do we cure cancer (which science is doing).

1. Without philosophy science has no rational foundation.
2. Science is restricted to the **physical **aspect of life.
3. Science tells us nothing about spiritual, moral, aesthetic, personal or metaphysical issues.

 

[inocente]

1. Without philosophy science has no rational foundation.

No one cares, the scientific method is validated by its results not by dudes in ivory towers.

You could close the philosophy department of every university, and science would still cure diseases and put men on the Moon just the same.

*2. Science is restricted to the **physical ***aspect of life.

And the mental. That kind of covers the lot then.

(OK, for the sake of hyperbole I’m slightly over-playing my hand, but not by much ).

3. Science tells us nothing about spiritual, moral, aesthetic, personal or metaphysical issues.

Let’s just see what the first few lines of the Wikipedia articles have to say…

Social scientists have defined spirituality as the search for “the sacred,” where “the sacred” is broadly defined as that which is set apart from the ordinary and worthy of veneration. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality

Science of morality can refer to a number of ethically naturalistic views. In meta-ethics, ethical naturalism bases morality on rational and empirical consideration of the natural world. This position has become increasingly popular among philosophers in the last three decades. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality

Aesthetics (also spelled æsthetics) is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of art, beauty, and taste, with the creation and appreciation of beauty. It is more scientifically defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics

Psychology is an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors. Psychology has the immediate goal of understanding individuals and groups by both establishing general principles and researching specific cases - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. Originally, the term “science” (Latin scientia) simply meant “knowledge”. The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics