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

[john_doran]

Please forgive me for “butting in”, but to my best knowledge, NO one says that. After all the (deductive) axiomatic systems do not need empirical verification. Of course if they are applied to the objective reality, that is a different issue, then the predictions must be verified.

well, it seems to me that inocente has been saying precisely this…

Tunare:

On the other hand it is true that all knowledge started with empirical observation - and this process started at the dawn of history, when the cavemen were anything but “philosophers”. The phrase “Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu” might be commonplace, but it is still true. Even the most abstract concept of “numbers” started with observing that “two apples are more than one apple”. Many simple people were unable to step beyond this, and for them the only numbers are: “one, two and many”.

we are in complete agreement here. crazy, huh?

 

[john_doran]

As I said, if a claim is about the objectively existing reality, then the epistemological method is to compare the predictions to the reality. If the claim is part of an axiomatic system, then the epistemological method is to use the axioms and the rules of transformation and see if the proposition can be reached from the axioms. It is very true that the actual transformations can be very complicated, but the “method” itself is extremely simple - to the point of triviality. Just like the actual claims about the objective reality can be decided by performing very complicated experiments and measurements, but the “process itself” is trivially simple.

ah, ok - i think i see what you’re saying now…

at this level, i would say that epistemology distills down coming up with a method for knowing when some proposition P is true, when P is true when it corresponds with reality (whether objective or abstract reality, in your terms.)

that description is trivial, but the actual method isn’t (as you recognize in your last point, below.)

Tunare:

Interesting. I don’t see that there is a lot of difference there. Is the claim that “only humans have an immortal soul” a physical claim or a metaphysical one?

metaphysical. more specifically, what is now called an ontological claim.

Tunare:

Oh, I certainly agree that the particulars can be very complicated (personally I have no idea how Fermat’s last theorem was proven), but the epistemological process (take the axioms and apply the rules of transformation) is simplicity itself.

i actually read an account of the history of the proof - pretty crazy stuff: Wiles combined a ton of different mathematical proofs from divergent sub-areas of math.

 

[inocente]

no, i’m not. at all.

but if you disagree, define “observation” and please demonstrate to me that i am.

I propose you didn’t know any math “worlds” a priori, in the womb.

*the same way that you know that any right-angled triangle will have a hypotenuse the square of the length of which will equal the sum of the squares of the other two sides, even without doing the measurements yourself.

the same way that you can know that 65^5 is 1,160,290,625 despite never having counted that many objects in your life.

the same way that you can know for any P and any Q, P → Q; P; therefore Q*

Once you have learned the method and have experience of when to apply it. You don’t know any of that at birth. (There is evidence that infants possess some basic arithmetic ability, but even that came about without design through the experiences of our ancestors).

look, your hypothesis is “only sensory data can yield knowledge”, and sensory data simply and straightforwardly cannot demonstrate the truth of such a proposition.

this is rock-bottom reasoning here, and if you cannot see that or accept it, then that honestly leaves us nowhere to go from here.

Nope. You said the statements in the second section of my post #361 were philosophy, but most are statements of fact, excepting “All our reasoning has to be learned, which means the way you parse “if a and b then a” is down to your unique set of experiences”.

That’s not a philosophical argument, it’s a testable hypothesis.

*what you mean is something like “if there’s no way to convince all (or very nearly most?) people of the truth of some theory, then that theory isn’t true”.

why on earth would anyone believe something like that?

and i’ll say it again: by that light, that very statement itself is falsified, since neither all nor most people are convinced of its truth.*

That’s not at all what I meant.

I meant exactly what I said, which is if there is no way of knowing (even in principle) which if any philosophy is correct, then all of them are subjective, on a par with paintings or poetry, a matter of taste.

 

[Peter_Plato]

On the other hand it is true that all knowledge started with empirical observation - and this process started at the dawn of history, when the cavemen were anything but “philosophers”. The phrase “Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu” might be commonplace, but it is still true. Even the most abstract concept of “numbers” started with observing that “two apples are more than one apple”. Many simple people were unable to step beyond this, and for them the only numbers are: “one, two and many”.

I think it might be helpful to distinguish between what the knowledge is about (the content) and standards for ascertaining truth.

Certainly, all knowledge ABOUT the empirical world started with empirical observation and must correspond to the natural world in order to be veridical. That goes with the territitory, so to speak. If it is knowledge about the empirical world, it must correspond to the empirical world. However, the truth of that statement does not reduce all possible knowledge to only that which can be had by empirical methods. As has been pointed out, certain knowledge in areas of mathematics and logic do not rely on induction. In fact, induction reduces the level of certainty and therefore rules out inductively grounded claims from logical certainty because these are contingent.

The further step, which Innocente seems to insist follows from the correspondence of empirical claims to empirical reality, is to claim that all knowledge can only be about the empirical world and that no other knowledge (in the sense of certainty) can be had except by empirical means.

That step is not and cannot be made precisely because it is self-referential and self-refuting. All knowledge cannot be empirical (claimed several times by Innocente) precisely because certainty about that claim cannot be grounded empirically.

 

[john_doran]

I propose you didn’t know any math “worlds” a priori, in the womb.

agreed.

inocente:

That’s not at all what I meant.

I meant exactly what I said, which is if there is no way of knowing (even in principle) which if any philosophy is correct, then all of them are subjective, on a par with paintings or poetry, a matter of taste.

but there is a principled way of knowing philosophical truths: by reasoning about them.

as for the rest of your post, i’m going to assume that Tunare’s post about the scholastic principle of “nothing is in the mind that is not first in the senses” is really what you’re trying to get at, and leave it at that.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That’s not a philosophical argument, it’s a testable hypothesis.

What? Philosophical arguments cannot also be testable? Why can a philosophical argument not be, at the same time, logically valid, true and empirically substantiated?

You are arguing that if a claim is testable in the real world, it cannot be logically established. I see no reason for thinking that to be true. A logically certain claim could also happen to be true in the physical world. That all triangles have three sides is a logical claim that happens to be testable in the real world, but does not rely for verification and certainty on empirical testing.

Furthermore, that empirical observation initially led a mind to a realization does not entail that the truth of that realization is dependent upon the initial empirical observation. Things might be true in the empirical world that are also logically and necessarily true, but not merely because they instantiate in the empirical world.

 

[inocente]

assuming the truth of your epistemological principle (there is no knowledge that is not empirical), in what way does it disqualify belief in god? i assume that’s the point you’ve been trying to make all along?

I’ve been arguing against the notion that God can be known through reason alone, even unto quoting 1 Cor 1, but keep it to yourself as no one has noticed.

*i mean, do we have empirical knowledge of quarks and leptons, for example? we certainly don’t have any direct observations of them, unless you consider scatterings on the screens of cloud chambers to constitute “direct” observational evidence.

it would seem to me that your principle either proves too little or too much: too little if it allows knowledge of entities based on their putative effects (like cloud chambers and particle accelerators, the cosmological argument for god’s existence is based on his effects); too much if it requires the entities in question to impinge directly on our sensory apparatus (nothing impinges directly on our senses: it’s all the exchange of photons and transmission of electrical pulses along neural pathways.)

but i am no doubt missing your point.*

There’s nothing sacred about what instruments are used to collect data, it’s still a posteriori.

My point is basically that all those philosophers who thought they could explain consciousness just by thinking about it really hard were missing the point that it’s too complicated, and the same goes for most problems.

The “philosophical method” doesn’t allow people to work on something in parallel, nor does it provide break points were provisional conclusions can be tested.

It’s just a very inefficient and unsound way to gain knowledge, although a popular way to pass the time in bars.

 

[inocente]

What? Philosophical arguments cannot also be testable? Why can a philosophical argument not be, at the same time, logically valid, true and empirically substantiated?

You are arguing that if a claim is testable in the real world, it cannot be logically established. I see no reason for thinking that to be true. A logically certain claim could also happen to be true in the physical world. That all triangles have three sides is a logical claim that happens to be testable in the real world, but does not rely for verification and certainty on empirical testing.

Furthermore, that empirical observation initially led a mind to a realization does not entail that the truth of that realization is dependent upon the initial empirical observation. Things might be true in the empirical world that are also logically and necessarily true, but not merely because they instantiate in the empirical world.

Nope. I meant you cannot prove or disprove by reasoning alone the hypothesis “All our reasoning has to be learned, which means the way you parse “if a and b then a” is down to your unique set of experiences"”.

You need to design a behavioral or neurological experiment to falsify it, you can’t do it by philosophical argument.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I think people believe science is the sole source of knowledge is because it does a pretty darn good job at explaining the material world.

Science, however, cannot prove

• moral truths

science cannot prove that murder is evil, though it can show the negative psychological effects of murder

• historical truths

science cannot prove that Abraham Lincoln was President of the US

• logical truths

science assumes & requires logic to be true in the first place, so it cannot prove logical truths

• experiential truths

science cannot prove that your wife loves you!

So clearly it cannot be the sole source of Knowledge, though it is a good source of Knowledge.

 

[tonyrey]

I think people believe science is the sole source of knowledge is because it does a pretty darn good job at explaining the material world.

Science, however, cannot prove

• moral truths

science cannot prove that murder is evil, though it can show the negative psychological effects of murder

• historical truths

science cannot prove that Abraham Lincoln was President of the US

• logical truths

science assumes & requires logic to be true in the first place, so it cannot prove logical truths

• experiential truths

science cannot prove that your wife loves you!

So clearly it cannot be the sole source of Knowledge, though it is a good source of Knowledge.

Irrefutable!

 

[tonyrey]

What? Philosophical arguments cannot also be testable? Why can a philosophical argument not be, at the same time, logically valid, true and empirically substantiated?

You are arguing that if a claim is testable in the real world, it cannot be logically established. I see no reason for thinking that to be true. A logically certain claim could also happen to be true in the physical world. That all triangles have three sides is a logical claim that happens to be testable in the real world, but does not rely for verification and certainty on empirical testing.

Furthermore, that empirical observation initially led a mind to a realization does not entail that the truth of that realization is dependent upon the initial empirical observation. Things might be true in the empirical world that are also logically and necessarily true, but not merely because they instantiate in the empirical world.

Science is not a foundation but an application! It is based on philosophical principles, some of which are logical. Such is the breadth, depth, value and significance of philosophy compared to science…

 

[Tunare]

we are in complete agreement here. crazy, huh?

I think it is great even if it were crazy! But maybe the old saying about great minds is applicable here…

ah, ok - i think i see what you’re saying now…

Yes, I am sure we see eye-to-eye now.

at this level, i would say that epistemology distills down coming up with a method for knowing when some proposition P is true, when P is true when it corresponds with reality (whether objective or abstract reality, in your terms.)

Precisely! This is the crux of the matter. As you say, epistemology is the common distilled method, regardless of the specifics of the branch of science.

that description is trivial, but the actual method isn’t (as you recognize in your last point, below.)

Exactly. But the actual method belongs to the specific branch of the “science”, for example to mathematics. It is not part of epistemology, per se. Epistemology is the generalized summation of the actual methods - for example it states that in EVERY axiomatic system the way to reach true propositions is to create the deductive chain from the proposition to the axioms (or the reverse). As we agree the actual method is different for each discipline (since there are different axioms and different rules for transformation), but the generalized method is the same. This is why I suggest that epistemology is trivial.

metaphysical. more specifically, what is now called an ontological claim.

Now we reach a very interesting point. The proposition is about the objective, external reality. As such it is supposed to belong to the same realm as the physical, chemical, biological claims - subject to the empirical verification principle. Of course, when one deals with a physical claim, the applied specific method is different from the method of a chemical or biological claim. (I am using the word “physics” in the strict sense here) But the generalized epistemological method (setting up a hypothesis, making a prediction, performing an experiment (or thousands of experiments), comparing the results of the experiments to the predictions - and thus verifying if the hypothesis is “good enough” - is still the same). So what kind of verification can be suggested to see if the proposed proposition (sorry about the “pun” ) is true or not?

i actually read an account of the history of the proof - pretty crazy stuff: Wiles combined a ton of different mathematical proofs from divergent sub-areas of math.

Yes, very hard to follow. Again, I wish to point out that the difficulty lies in the actual mathematical reasoning, not in the simple epistemological foundation.

 

[inocente]

I think people believe science is the sole source of knowledge is because it does a pretty darn good job at explaining the material world.

Science, however, cannot prove

• moral truths

science cannot prove that murder is evil, though it can show the negative psychological effects of murder

• historical truths

science cannot prove that Abraham Lincoln was President of the US

• logical truths

science assumes & requires logic to be true in the first place, so it cannot prove logical truths

• experiential truths

science cannot prove that your wife loves you!

So clearly it cannot be the sole source of Knowledge, though it is a good source of Knowledge.

However, science can prove that the same headings appear in a blog at powertochange.com/discover/life/five-things-science-explain/

But the blogger is wrong on all counts:

moral - Presumably the blogger thinks that since evil is a human conception which cannot be measured objectively, it’s unavailable to science. But science can easily correlate murder with peoples’ concept of evil, it’s the kind of thing market researchers do every day.

historical - The blogger is hoping we don’t notice that nothing and no one can prove Lincoln was president. But the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt, and history depends on evidence, just like science. No philosopher could prove Lincoln existed by reason alone.

logical - There is nothing magical about logic. I proved “if a and b then a” using a battery, switches and a light bulb at age eleven or thereabouts. Every computer contains AND, OR, NOT gates and conditional GOTO instructions which, by virtue of electrical circuits alone, test logical truths.

experiential - Again the blogger is being silly, as if anything can prove your wife loves you. But science has a best chance of demonstrating it, even if it’s just observing whether her actions are consistent with a loving manner.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

However, science can prove that the same headings appear in a blog at powertochange.com/discover/life/five-things-science-explain/

Why would I avoid using something that is right?

But the blogger is wrong on all counts:

More accurately, your understanding of the blogger is wrong on all counts…

moral - Presumably the blogger thinks that since evil is a human conception which cannot be measured objectively, it’s unavailable to science. But science can easily correlate murder with peoples’ concept of evil, it’s the kind of thing market researchers do every day.

I would think your presumption wrong, the real reason is that evil is the realm of metaphysics, not science–evil is a non-material thing, and science can only discuss the material.

historical - The blogger is hoping we don’t notice that nothing and no one can prove Lincoln was president. But the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt, and history depends on evidence, just like science. No philosopher could prove Lincoln existed by reason alone.

As the blogger states,

the method for proving historical truths is different from testing scientific truths since historical truths are by nature non-repeatable

Surely I can read an American history book and find that Abraham Lincoln was indeed a President of the US, but that is not a scientific proof.

logical - There is nothing magical about logic. I proved “if a and b then a” using a battery, switches and a light bulb at age eleven or thereabouts. Every computer contains AND, OR, NOT gates and conditional GOTO instructions which, by virtue of electrical circuits alone, test logical truths.

Who says that logic is magical? I certainly never said so, nor did the blogger. But logic is a premise of science, not a result.

Your example brings us to causation: science cannot prove causation exists. Causation is a premise of science. Further, AND, NOT, and OR gates work because logic works. That is, it is not a test of logic but a result of logic.

experiential - Again the blogger is being silly, as if anything can prove your wife loves you. But science has a best chance of demonstrating it, even if it’s just observing whether her actions are consistent with a loving manner.

Again, love is a non-material thing and science cannot prove the non-material.

 

[catholictiger]

I think people believe science is the sole source of knowledge is because it does a pretty darn good job at explaining the material world.

Science, however, cannot prove

• moral truths

science cannot prove that murder is evil, though it can show the negative psychological effects of murder

• historical truths

science cannot prove that Abraham Lincoln was President of the US

• logical truths

science assumes & requires logic to be true in the first place, so it cannot prove logical truths

• experiential truths

science cannot prove that your wife loves you!

So clearly it cannot be the sole source of Knowledge, though it is a good source of Knowledge.

this is great thanks for showing this.

 

[catholictiger]

However, science can prove that the same headings appear in a blog at powertochange.com/discover/life/five-things-science-explain/

But the blogger is wrong on all counts:

moral - Presumably the blogger thinks that since evil is a human conception which cannot be measured objectively, it’s unavailable to science. But science can easily correlate murder with peoples’ concept of evil, it’s the kind of thing market researchers do every day.

historical - The blogger is hoping we don’t notice that nothing and no one can prove Lincoln was president. But the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt, and history depends on evidence, just like science. No philosopher could prove Lincoln existed by reason alone.

logical - There is nothing magical about logic. I proved “if a and b then a” using a battery, switches and a light bulb at age eleven or thereabouts. Every computer contains AND, OR, NOT gates and conditional GOTO instructions which, by virtue of electrical circuits alone, test logical truths.

experiential - Again the blogger is being silly, as if anything can prove your wife loves you. But science has a best chance of demonstrating it, even if it’s just observing whether her actions are consistent with a loving manner.

someone has already addressed this post so I won’t do it again but I have a very simple question for you.

what is the origin of matter?

if we don’t know the origin of matter what are some possibilities of the origin of matter? How can we go about finding it?

just a clarification doesn’t science only study matter? (aka everything in the universe is made up of matter so science studies everything in the universe)

 

[Peter_Plato]

However, science can prove that the same headings appear in a blog at powertochange.com/discover/life/five-things-science-explain/

But the blogger is wrong on all counts:

moral - Presumably the blogger thinks that since evil is a human conception which cannot be measured objectively, it’s unavailable to science. But science can easily correlate murder with peoples’ concept of evil, it’s the kind of thing market researchers do every day.

historical - The blogger is hoping we don’t notice that nothing and no one can prove Lincoln was president. But the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt, and history depends on evidence, just like science. No philosopher could prove Lincoln existed by reason alone.

logical - There is nothing magical about logic. I proved “if a and b then a” using a battery, switches and a light bulb at age eleven or thereabouts. Every computer contains AND, OR, NOT gates and conditional GOTO instructions which, by virtue of electrical circuits alone, test logical truths.

experiential - Again the blogger is being silly, as if anything can prove your wife loves you. But science has a best chance of demonstrating it, even if it’s just observing whether her actions are consistent with a loving manner.

Again, your presumption is showing, but you remain oblivious to it.

At least three of the above (moral, historical, experiential) are qualitative “filters” which the human mind maps onto physical reality. Of course, there are correlations between events in physical reality and the way in which they are interpreted by the human mind and its filters, but the filters are “qualitative” and no way produced by the evidence. The filters are a priori and are presupposed in any interpretation. The scientific method, to remain purely objective or quantitative, does not create the filters and tries to interpret the data without reference to any of the filters. The evidence might corroborate the interpretation that arises when a filter is applied, but gathering the evidence (what science is about) needs to remain a separate activity distinct from interpretation. This distinction is crucial.

Your “rebuttals” to Alberti_Devoveo’s points highlight the correlation between the filters and physical reality, but you seem to presume the qualities are inherent in and arise from the evidential data, missing the point that they are an aspect of how human beings interpret the data and that the correlation between the data and the interpretation is dependent upon the human application of the filters and not found in the data itself.

Logic is not a filter, but instead a “formal” process which arises from the structure of intelligence itself. It is only possible to a rational mind and is also applied to physical reality in order to make physical reality intelligible. Some would argue, and I am sympathetic to this view, that physical reality is fundamentally intelligible because it was conceived and brought into being by intelligence. Physical reality is amenable to being comprehended because the Intelligence that created it also created human capacity for intelligence and reason. I believe this is the Thomist or Realist view as opposed to both the Rationalist or Empiricist views that separate the physical from the rational.

 

[SoylentGreen]

Science is limited to the study of the material world … Why do people insist that science is the be all end all of knowledge and information? Why is belief in God allegedly incompatible with Science?

Only those scientists who are extremists, such as Richard Dawkins, thinks that science is the be all and the end all of knowledge. I think most scientists would distance themselves from his worldview, which tosses aside not only religion, but also philosophy.

Science I also think is entirely compatible with belief in God. The laws of physics are only a reflection of the Absolute Mind of God that has fashioned the whole of creation in such a manner that it can be described by the laws of physics, at least to the extent that these laws do indeed help scientists to understand the universe.

The more science can offer the more understanding of God it can offer. For instance, I think big bang cosmology points to an ultimate beginning, or an initial act of creation. If the alternative is proposed, that the universe simply always existed, this conflicts with the idea of God initiating creation. It the universe has always existed there is no need to posit God as a creator. Big bang cosmology points to God’s existence for it points to an act of creation. It is just part of the overall answer to the puzzle of God’s creation, and it has been provided to us by science. We should be thankful for this.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’ve been arguing against the notion that God can be known through reason alone, even unto quoting 1 Cor 1, but keep it to yourself as no one has noticed.

There’s nothing sacred about what instruments are used to collect data, it’s still a posteriori.

My point is basically that all those philosophers who thought they could explain consciousness just by thinking about it really hard were missing the point that it’s too complicated, and the same goes for most problems.

The “philosophical method” doesn’t allow people to work on something in parallel, nor does it provide break points were provisional conclusions can be tested.

It’s just a very inefficient and unsound way to gain knowledge, although a popular way to pass the time in bars.

Can you explain what makes a horse a horse, what makes a man a man, what makes a dog a dog, what makes any element to be the element it is ( I’m speaking of the periodic table here. ) The point I’m making is that science can only go so far, It cannot explain any of the above, but philosophy can, Each substance ( defined as a thing which exists but which exists in no other) in the " material " universe behaves in such a manner that it can be said to have a " nature " or " essence " composed of matter ( a particular matter) and a form ( a substantial form). So a horse has an essence or nature which is determinable by the accidents it displays in its activity.

This is what philosophy can do which science cannot. Now you may say this is a fruitless endeavor but that just exposes your prejudice against any type of reasoning not employed by science. For although science does not study the underlying composition or nature of substances, it does accept them or it would not be able to function.

And you said elsewhere that it was impossible to determine which philosophy was correct. In a sense you are correct. However we can automatically eliminate those which are Idealistic, it safe to take as a basic truth that we live in a real world. That narrows the choice down pretty far. In fact, it leaves us essentially with two forms of Thomism, those who side strictly with Thomas and those, like Duns Scotus, who do not. And the Scotus school and the like really have not born much fruit.

Why don’t you get " Aquinas, " by Edward Feser, out of the library or purchase a copy ( it is very reasonable) and read it. What have got to loose. I think it will open new vistas for you and it won’t put your genuine scientific thinking at risk at all. I know more than one Thomist who is a working scientist.

Linus2nd

 

[SoylentGreen]

Science is limited to the study of the material world. We’re only able to study what we are allowed to study, nothing more. Why do people insist that science is the be all end all of knowledge and information? Why is belief in God allegedly incompatible with Science?

Just to add another note: science cannot explain how life began. To do this scientists would have to cross an enormous gulf that I believe is unbridgeable, by empirical means. They would have to discover how inanimate matter became organized into animate organisms. What was the very first organism to develop from inanimate matter? If scientists could bridge this gap, it would be a giant step forward for science. But this is asking for the impossible, despite there being those who think Artificial Intelligence is moving in just that direction. I think, to the contrary, that inanimate matter, if there was no God, had no replicating power to form itself into more complex structures that we might call “living” organisms.

Beyond this, there is another enormous gulf that science will never bridge. Scientists still do not know where the mass from which our universe was formed, came from. It is simply taken as a given.

Science furthermore cannot tell us why the universe is expanding, nor has any scientist given an explanation of time. What is time?

There is much here for philosophers to speculate about. Scientists are strictly limited by their empirical method. Philosophers however are not similarly restricted and I know of no philosophers or theologians who profess that science is the only path toward understanding–though there may be such. I also do not think the vast majority of scientists profess that science is the only route toward discovering Truth. I’m sure the majority of scientists can appreciate the need for other disciplines. Much of science also proceeds on grounds of faith–in this instance, a faith in the empirical method. Even the materialist dogma that only matter exists is a dogmatic position grounded on faith. Though materialists might deny their worldviews are founded on faith.