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

[inocente]

Obviously the comic is greatly simplifying, a better representation that somewhat captures the emergence can be seen here–note that the poster itself says it is an over-simplification still.

Thanks, that’s good, it’s now in my bookmarks.

I do not know if Randall Munroe (the author of xkcd) does or does not believe in emergence, but it is a webcomic .

My favorite of his kind of captures the human condition:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
xkcd.com/162/

But this property of countability exists independently in everything. Mathematics employs this intrinsic property and physics uses (or abuses, depending on what you are doing) the mathematics based on that property.

Not sure how we could know whether countability exists is an empty world.

Wikipedia says the reality or otherwise of numbers is one of the great unsolved problems of philosophy, but it doesn’t stop us counting, because counting works, so yet again no one in the real world cares what philosophers can’t fathom.

*Just as there a multitude of branches in physics, there are a multitude of branches in philosophy. Each branch is asking a different “why” question, just as each branch of physics is looking at a different piece of the universal puzzle.

To be fair, philosophers are not as interested in “how” we tick as they are in “why” we tick, so of course science can discover more about “how” we tick in 10 years than philosophers could in a million: the two are asking and answering different questions.*

I’ve never understood this supposed distinction between how and why, it seems just a word game. I mean the reason why we have night and day is that the Earth rotates.

But if how is the means and why is the ends, then by means of reason alone we get to lots of different ends, whereas by means of reason plus evidence we get to one. As Lawrence Krauss said, the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not.

 

[inocente]

It is fashionable in our day for shallow thinkers to exalt science and denigrate philosophy. The efforts and successes of science are certainly impressive. What we must avoid most of all is making a god of science. Bad philosophy has produced plenty of bad science. Had we had good or better philosophy in the 1940s we might never have engineered weapons of mass destruction capable of annihilating most life on the planet. Those who gloss over this fact, that science has produced a good deal of fear and misery along with great benefits to humanity, will stop thinking of science as so much more important than the philosophy that guides scientists toward good or evil.

Which philosopher guides scientists towards good? I mean there’s so many to choose from. Karl Marx? Nietzsche? Or do you mean hedonism? utilitarianism?

Anyway, from what you say revelation is now redundant and replaced by reason alone, so we can turn all the cathedrals into theme parks, and the churches into banks. O brave new world, that has such people in it!

It is fashionable in our day for shallow thinkers to exalt philosophy and denigrate faith.

 

[inocente]

That is a philosophical statement! How would you prove it?

Hypothesis: Philosophy is just dressed-up speculation.

Method: Count the number of philosophers and the number of their differing conclusions.

Results: The number of differing conclusions is approximately the same as the number of philosophers making them.

Discussion: Philosophers draw wildly different conclusions on every topic under the sun. Since truth cannot contradict truth, most if not all of those conclusions must be false.

Do you consider God to be real? If so how would you prove it?

As said many times, science isn’t about proof, nor can God be reduced to a scientific hypothesis, although for example that’s exactly what intelligent design fans attempt.

Is belief in God speculation?

If it is by reason alone then yes, since no logical argument can prove (or disprove) His existence.

If by faith then no, since faith isn’t about guessing while speculation is defined as guessing possible answers without having enough information to be certain.

Is knowledge restricted to what you can see, hear, taste, smell and touch? If so how would you prove it?

As said many times, science isn’t about proof. But we know that knowledge comes from experience, while no one can prove there is such a thing as knowledge a priori, so we go with what we know.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Which philosopher guides scientists towards good? I mean there’s so many to choose from. Karl Marx? Nietzsche? Or do you mean hedonism? utilitarianism?

Anyway, from what you say revelation is now redundant and replaced by reason alone, so we can turn all the cathedrals into theme parks, and the churches into banks. O brave new world, that has such people in it!

It is fashionable in our day for shallow thinkers to exalt philosophy and denigrate faith.

You come across as a shallow thinking Kierkegaard wannabe. For one thing you either don’t understand or misapply Either/Or. No one but you is claiming revelation is redundant. Nor is anyone claiming it can or should be replaced by reason alone.

My position is that reasoning is a formal tool. You can begin with any of these:

1. Revelation
2. Accepted axioms in metaphysics or other areas of study
3. Scientific observations, evidence or even theorems
4. Moral principles or rules of thumb
5. Pragmatic considerations

Premises from any of the above can serve as the beginning points of a logical argument. The rules of logic can then be applied to draw proper conclusions from any of the areas, including revelation. That is “doing philosophy.” Philosophy is formalized thinking using the methods of logic to constrain conclusions to only those which can be inferred from the premises.

Science itself, the interpretation of Scripture and making moral decisions are all helped in arrivng at proper conclusions by using reason and logic. In fact, if you look up the definition of a theorem in science or mathematics, it is “a general proposition proved by a chain of reasoning.” That, my friend, is essentially what philosophy is: formalized thinking using rules of logic to deduce conclusions from accepted premises or to inductively draw conclusions from what is observed or accepted as true.

Only a shallow thinker would equate "schools of philosophy” to what philosophy essentially is, conveniently forgetting the lesson of the Wise Men and the Elephant which is not that the wise men were all wrong in their descriptions of the elephant, but that they were all partly right and added something to the understanding of the elephant. Philosophy as a field of endeavor may not have provided all the answers, but neither has science and neither does revelation. Each, like the wise men in the fable has its own contribution to make. Only you think they are necessarily exclusive of each other - that the wise man who says the elephant is like a tree trunk (revelation) renders redundant, replaces and cannot be reconciled with the wise man who says it’s like a multi-stranded rope (schools of philosophy) - and that is your error.

Truth is the ultimate concern. You have divided truth into two parts: the physical and the spiritual. According to the philosophy of Innocente, science provides all the answers to the first and revelation to the second. That is your philosophy and like all the other philosophies that you tout as fallible, your philosophy can be reduced to an incongruent mess of beliefs.

The point being, there is always more to be learned about the truth because it is deep and beyond human ability to completely encapsulate. Poking holes in false or inadequate portrayals of it, including yours, at least keeps us all honest and real in our endeavor to uncover the whole of it, but that does not mean even false or inadequate portrayals have nothing to add - they do - but each does not tell the whole story - not even yours.

 

[inocente]

You come across as a shallow thinking Kierkegaard wannabe. For one thing you either don’t understand or misapply Either/Or. No one but you is claiming revelation is redundant

Never claimed revelation is redundant, stop putting words in my mouth, I said exactly the opposite.

I already told you I’ve had enough of your name calling, and haven’t read the rest of your post, but will if you edit out the personal remarks and repost it, otherwise we’re done here.

Now this is a Christian philosophy forum and we’re only discussing stuff, why is it all such a matter of life and death to you that you can’t post charitably?

 

[tonyrey]

You come across as a shallow thinking Kierkegaard wannabe. For one thing you either don’t understand or misapply Either/Or. No one but you is claiming revelation is redundant. Nor is anyone claiming it can or should be replaced by reason alone.

My position is that reasoning is a formal tool. You can begin with any of these:

1. Revelation
2. Accepted axioms in metaphysics or other areas of study
3. Scientific observations, evidence or even theorems
4. Moral principles or rules of thumb
5. Pragmatic considerations

Premises from any of the above can serve as the beginning points of a logical argument. The rules of logic can then be applied to draw proper conclusions from any of the areas, including revelation. That is “doing philosophy.” Philosophy is formalized thinking using the methods of logic to constrain conclusions to only those which can be inferred from the premises.

Science itself, the interpretation of Scripture and making moral decisions are all helped in arrivng at proper conclusions by using reason and logic. In fact, if you look up the definition of a theorem in science or mathematics, it is “a general proposition proved by a chain of reasoning.” That, my friend, is essentially what philosophy is: formalized thinking using rules of logic to deduce conclusions from accepted premises or to inductively draw conclusions from what is observed or accepted as true.

Only a shallow thinker would equate "schools of philosophy” to what philosophy essentially is, conveniently forgetting the lesson of the Wise Men and the Elephant which is not that the wise men were all wrong in their descriptions of the elephant, but that they were all partly right and added something to the understanding of the elephant. Philosophy as a field of endeavor may not have provided all the answers, but neither has science and neither does revelation. Each, like the wise men in the fable has its own contribution to make. Only you think they are necessarily exclusive of each other - that the wise man who says the elephant is like a tree trunk (revelation) renders redundant, replaces and cannot be reconciled with the wise man who says it’s like a multi-stranded rope (schools of philosophy) - and that is your error.

Truth is the ultimate concern. You have divided truth into two parts: the physical and the spiritual. According to the philosophy of Innocente, science provides all the answers to the first and revelation to the second. That is your philosophy and like all the other philosophies that you tout as fallible, your philosophy can be reduced to an incongruent mess of beliefs.

The point being, there is always more to be learned about the truth because it is deep and beyond human ability to completely encapsulate. Poking holes in false or inadequate portrayals of it, including yours, at least keeps us all honest and real in our endeavor to uncover the whole of it, but that does not mean even false or inadequate portrayals have nothing to add - they do - but each does not tell the whole story - not even yours.

:clapping: Without philosophy science wouldn’t even exist. It is no coincidence that Aristotle made valuable contributions to both, revealing the dependence of science on philosophy.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Never claimed revelation is redundant, stop putting words in my mouth, I said exactly the opposite.

Precisely! And no one else did either. So stop putting words into the mouths of others, if you don’t like it being done to you.

Anyway, from what you say revelation is now redundant and replaced by reason alone…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10964431&postcount=435

That said, I will edit my sentence.

**No one but you is claiming revelation is made redundant by reason. **

 

[inocente]

Precisely! And no one else did either. So stop putting words into the mouths of others, if you don’t like it being done to you.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10964431&postcount=435

So “Had we had good or better philosophy in the 1940s” is inoperative and should now be read as “Had we had good or better revelation in the 1940s”.

And likewise “the philosophy that guides scientists toward good or evil” is now inoperative and should be read as “the revelation that guides scientists toward good or evil”.

Sounds like the script of Watergate, only without Nixon’s finesse and charm. Read what’s written and stop putting words in the mouths of others.

Are we done with the playground now?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Now this is a Christian philosophy forum and we’re only discussing stuff, why is it all such a matter of life and death to you that you can’t post charitably?

It matters because you seem to think you can do to others with impunity what you are demanding that I stop doing to you. Read some of your sarcastic replies to the comments of others.

See, for example, post 435, where you are the first to use the term “shallow thinkers” referring to the comments of others. So, it is charitable for you to do so, but uncharitable of me to return the favour? I can cite more than a few other similar comments.

 

[tonyrey]

Hypothesis: Philosophy is just dressed-up speculation.

Method: Count the number of philosophers and the number of their differing conclusions.

Results: The number of differing conclusions is approximately the same as the number of philosophers making them.

Hypothesis: inocente’s hypothesis is just dressed-up speculation.

Method: Count the number of philosophers and the number of their differing conclusions.
Results: The number of differing conclusions is approximately the same as the number of philosophers making them.

If that is true the number of differing conclusions is approximately the same as the number of philosophers making them - including inocente’s conclusion.

Discussion: Philosophers draw wildly different conclusions on every topic under the sun. Since truth cannot contradict truth, most if not all of those conclusions must be false.

Including inocente’s conclusion (unless he is infallible).

As said many times, science isn’t about proof, nor can God be reduced to a scientific hypothesis, although for example that’s exactly what intelligent design fans attempt.

If science proves nothing it is useless…

If it is by reason alone then yes, since no logical argument can prove (or disprove) His existence.

If by faith then no, since faith isn’t about guessing while speculation is defined as guessing possible answers without having enough information to be certain.

Your faith in science amounts to guessing if you don’t have enough information to be certain of anything.

As said many times, science isn’t about proof. But we know that knowledge comes from experience, while no one can prove there is such a thing as knowledge a priori, so we go with what we know.

What is your interpretation of experience? The evidence from the eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin?

 

[tonyrey]

Not much further ahead than the Stoics that preceded him. Jesus never spoke out against slavery, for example.

On topic: did we ever list the “source of knowledge” that is not science?

Jesus didn’t speak out against slavery because His teaching that we are all children of the same Father is the basis of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. He also knew He would be executed before He could fulfil His mission if He condemned the existing social system. Even so He was put to death on the trumped up charge of sedition.

Don’t you believe His teaching is a source of knowledge - and far more precious than science?

 

[Peter_Plato]

So “Had we had good or better philosophy in the 1940s” is inoperative and should now be read as “Had we had good or better revelation in the 1940s”.

And likewise “the philosophy that guides scientists toward good or evil” is now inoperative and should be read as “the revelation that guides scientists toward good or evil”.

What you seem to be getting at here is that revelation remains unchanging and, if followed, would have served to steer the world clear of the problems created in the 1940s.

The answer to your point is that bad philosophy is often used to garner bad conclusions from the truths found in revelation, so a better use of reason and logic would have saved the world from misconceiving the false implications of revelation. As far as I can tell there is nothing revealed specifically about fascism, so any use we can make of revelation regarding political ideologies must rely on correct deductions from what has been revealed in terms of human governance. That is where good philosophy is important (as Charlemagne was implying.)

As an aside, what has been revealed about sodomy and same sex behaviour is clear and cogent, but there are some - present company included - who will take that revelation in a number of directions even to the point of disavowing themselves of what revelation clearly states for the sake of personal preferences. It would seem convenient to dismiss the rigors of logic and reason for the sake of allowing and justifying personal renditions concerning revelation. That translates to revelation on my terms and not based upon what is actually implied or reasonably deduced from revelation.

This is where the philosophy of Innocente falls apart. Where no method of reason or deduction is available to glean from revelation what logically follows, it becomes a rather arbitrary exercise to apply revelation to the daily business of living. What you seem to advocate is a kind of pragmatism: accept revelation where it works and ignore what isn’t practical or convenient. Jesus could have saved himself a lot of misery had he followed your sage advice. Fortunately for the rest of us he wasn’t limited by your pragmatism.

As a further aside, it would be interesting to hear how you would have handled the three temptations of Christ in the desert. Satan’s suggestions come across as very workable, fit the evidence and would have been easier to carry out with very tangible results. They would seem to fit your “go with what we know” philosophy quite nicely.

 

[Gricken]

I’m going to make a long analogy here. So stick with me

Trying to Claim that science is the only source of knowledge would be like walking into a super market and going down one aisle, and only that one aisle. You see a lot of amazing things on this aisle, things you weren’t even expecting to find. But the one thing you can’t find is what you came to buy. You ask a worker there about the item in question, and he says you can find it two aisles over. but you get confused at this. More aisles? You didn’t see them, so you deduce they don’t exist . and leave the store unhappy

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
It is fashionable in our day for shallow thinkers to exalt philosophy and denigrate faith.**

But only a shallow atheist philosopher would exalt philosophy and denigrate faith.

Which philosopher guides scientists towards good? I mean there’s so many to choose from. Karl Marx? Nietzsche? Or do you mean hedonism? utilitarianism?

As there is good and bad science, there is good and bad philosophy. Marx and Nietzsche have certainly failed miserably. So has hedonism and utilitarianism. You will find good philosophy where reason allows itself to be guided by the true God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Who in your opinion would be the greater intellect?

The one who invented atomic bombs?

Or the one (if he had lived) who could use philosophy to prevent the building of atomic bombs?

You see the point, don’t you?

Wisdom trumps knowledge.

Knowledge is science.

Wisdom is philosophy.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

As to a point made by someone earlier, the preaching of Jesus did indeed cover slavery.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Who would have others turn them into a slave?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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?

Because they haven’t read or heard of Edward Feser. See him here: vimeo.com/60979789

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

It matters because you seem to think you can do to others with impunity what you are demanding that I stop doing to you. Read some of your sarcastic replies to the comments of others.

See, for example, post 435, where you are the first to use the term “shallow thinkers” referring to the comments of others. So, it is charitable for you to do so, but uncharitable of me to return the favour? I can cite more than a few other similar comments.

I was repeating a line posted to me.

Rather than being able to discuss the topic, I’ve had to waste a lot of time on this thread trying to correct your wrong impressions and deal with your bad behavior and holier-than-thou lecturing, so I’ll not be reading any more of your posts.

 

[inocente]

As there is good and bad science, there is good and bad philosophy. Marx and Nietzsche have certainly failed miserably. So has hedonism and utilitarianism. You will find good philosophy where reason allows itself to be guided by the true God.

So you’re not actually arguing for philosophy, just for the bits you happen to like.

You see the point, don’t you?

Yes, you’re saying knowledge is power and hindsight is wisdom.

 

[inocente]

Hypothesis: inocente’s hypothesis is just dressed-up speculation.

If that is true the number of differing conclusions is approximately the same as the number of philosophers making them - including inocente’s conclusion.

Including inocente’s conclusion (unless he is infallible).

If science proves nothing it is useless…

Your faith in science amounts to guessing if you don’t have enough information to be certain of anything.

What is your interpretation of experience? The evidence from the eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin?

Sorry, couldn’t make any sense of that.

Belittling anything which challenges prejudices isn’t philosophy.

Approving everything which happens to confirm the status quo isn’t philosophy.

imho you and two or three others here are not arguing for philosophy at all, but merely against any ideas you don’t happen to like and for received dogmas you do happen to like.