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

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

**Irrefutable. Disagreement merely proves the obvious: the truth is not always obvious - but I should have thought it is obvious the truth is not always obvious! **

 

[inocente]

That philosophers disagree proves nothing against philosophy.

If it did, the fact that scientists disagree would prove that science also is useless.

On the contrary. Pick any subject and the number of disagreeing philosophers always increases over the centuries.

The signal of truth is ever more swamped by the noise of disagreeing philosophers, until the signal-to-noise ratio drops away to zero and all that is left is a babel of noise, no closer to truth than random static.

And it is bound to be this way since philosophers have nothing to home in on, while scientists tune in on empirical evidence. The entire notion that there is truth without evidence is false, which is why philosophy never gets anywhere, the entire project is based on the seductively daft notion that merely by sitting in an armchair and thinking really hard one can find the truth.

 

[Peter_Plato]

On the contrary. Pick any subject and the number of disagreeing philosophers always increases over the centuries.

The signal of truth is ever more swamped by the noise of disagreeing philosophers, until the signal-to-noise ratio drops away to zero and all that is left is a babel of noise, no closer to truth than random static.

Ah, yes! The beauty of simple-minded… Uh… simplicity in analysis.

So to arrive at the truth of any subject, say the subject of “what inocente is,” let us simply make it a matter of agreement. Inocente is precisely and only what we can all come by agreement to what it is that we determine him to be. It is not important that we, objectively speaking, do not have full access to the inner workings of inocente since it is the method that we use that determines the reality of the thing - any thing.

Since the inner workings of inocente are not available to objective observation and analysis we can summarily dismiss and disregard these. So anything that inocente proposes about himself cannot be used in our determination of what inocente is because what he tells us about himself is not something we can “hone in on” to determine the truth of it. For all we know he could be saying and acting in certain ways, or even, God forbid, lying about them, simply to give an impression about himself, an impression that cannot, by the fact that he is the only one who could possibly know the veracity of that impression, be accepted since, in principle, it is not subject to agreement by all.

And it is bound to be this way since philosophers have nothing to home in on, while scientists tune in on empirical evidence. The entire notion that there is truth without evidence is false, which is why philosophy never gets anywhere, the entire project is based on the seductively daft notion that merely by sitting in an armchair and thinking really hard one can find the truth.

We can safely ignore anything inocente has to say about himself since we, as scientists, “tune in on” empirical evidence. The entire notion that inocente is anything but what we agree that he is, as outside and objective observers, is false. That entire proposition, I.e., that inocente has anything to add concerning the truth about himself by taking up the position inside his own experiences, a closed room, if you like, and thinking really hard about them, is a seductively daft notion, which we will summarily dismiss.

Inocente is only what we as empirical observers determine him to be and nothing but, since accepting any other “insider information” can only lead to doubts and dissension as to the nature of inocente.

The truth is nothing but what our method tells us. Since we have determined the method, a full, complete and squabble-free determination of the truth will inevitably follow. If inocente tries to sidetrack our determinations about himself with contentious statements, we will ignore him and if he continues, we will silence him. This is all for his own good because, as he agrees, endless squabbles and disagreements are entirely without merit and dangerous to the pursuit of the truth about him (and everything else) as we have predetermined the truth to be by our method.

We shall call this the Black Swan Method. Once we have determined what a black swan, aka the truth, is, we have arrived at an indisputable means by which to determine the nature of all truth. If it is black and a swan, it is the truth. Very simple and this ends all the endless squabbling of philosophers who have no clue.

Any attempt to contradict this endeavor by Peter Plato, or anyone else, will be ignored. The ignore button is very useful in this regard.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

**The entire notion that there is truth without evidence is false, which is why philosophy never gets anywhere, the entire project is based on the seductively daft notion that merely by sitting in an armchair and thinking really hard one can find the truth. **

Indeed, then why do you have the “seductively daft notion that merely by sitting in an armchair and thinking really hard” you can find a truth worth telling us at Catholic Answers?

 

[inocente]

Indeed, then why do you have the “seductively daft notion that merely by sitting in an armchair and thinking really hard” you can find a truth worth telling us at Catholic Answers?

On the contrary, I gave evidence. Pick any subject and the number of disagreeing philosophers always increases over the centuries. The evidence is that while there can be only one truth, while we all know that truth cannot contradict truth, philosophers never agree.

Your post provided no contrary evidence or argument. Some posters have no answers, Catholic or otherwise, except testosterone driven personal attacks to massage their egos. Please only respond if you have better answers than that.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Your post provided no contrary evidence or argument. Some posters have no answers, Catholic or otherwise, except testosterone driven personal attacks to massage their egos. Please only respond if you have better answers than that.

Sounds like your testosterone level is up. As it usually is when you have no good answer ]to offer.

**The evidence is that while there can be only one truth, while we all know that truth cannot contradict truth, philosophers never agree. **

As usual, you never offer evidence that “philosophers never agree.” Put that in your pipe for a better smoke!

Many philosophers agree on many things. And if you thinks scientists never disagree, you haven’t lived in the world of science at all.

 

[inocente]

As usual, you never offer evidence that “philosophers never agree.” Put that in your pipe for a better smoke!

Many philosophers agree on many things. And if you thinks scientists never disagree, you haven’t lived in the world of science at all.

Strawman. Scientists know there is only one nature with one set of laws, and as I said they home in on that, while philosophers never agree, and I’ve repeatedly given the example of all the different “explanations” they have of consciousness.

Please pick any subject where all philosophers agree and there is only one school of thought. Name that single -ism. I think you can’t. Philosophers are like boy bands, it’s just the opinion of fans about who has the dreamiest eyes and the cutest dimples.

 

[Peter_Plato]

inocente

Sounds like your testosterone level is up. As it usually is when you have no good answer ]to offer.

Philosophers are like boy bands, it’s just the opinion of fans about who has the dreamiest eyes and the cutest dimples.

Or estrogen level, perhaps?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Please pick any subject where all philosophers agree and there is only one school of thought.

All philosophers would agree that science would not exist if it were not for philosophy, and in particular that branch of philosophy that is called logic.

Now prove that the theory of evolution, for example, is an area where all scientists agree. Thank you.

 

[inocente]

All philosophers would agree that science would not exist if it were not for philosophy, and in particular that branch of philosophy that is called logic.

That’s obviously false, no philosopher could use logic to determine whether, for instance, the first ancient Babylonian astronomical observations came before or after their first philosophizing.

That’s the province of historians and archeologists. Name a piece of knowledge produced by using the methods of philosophy which all philosophers agree is true.

Not much to ask for, should be a snip.

Now prove that the theory of evolution, for example, is an area where all scientists agree. Thank you.

ID isn’t science. And there’s no point repeating your strawman. Scientists know there is only one world, only one set of laws, and this allows them to home in on the one theory of gravity, the one theory of evolution.

Philosophers can’t even agree there is a world.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
Philosophers can’t even agree there is a world.**

Name one philosopher who says there is no world and give the passage in which he says it.

That’s obviously false, no philosopher could use logic to determine whether, for instance, the first ancient Babylonian astronomical observations came before or after their first philosophizing.

Logic is in the province of philosophy, not science. The first developments in modern science were promoted by men who were primarily philosophers. They used logic (a philosophical tool) to develop the principles of scientific research, as when the British philosopher Francis Bacon wrote his famous Novum Organum that became the bible for scientists in Europe and nudged science toward the modern experimental method.

Scientists know there is only one world, only one set of laws, and this allows them to home in on the one theory of gravity, the one theory of evolution.

Sorry, but abiogenesis does not conform to any theory of evolution, so evolution cannot even explain the origin of life. Scientists generally agree that this is so. Moreover, many aspects of evolution are purely theoretical and are not subscribed to by all biologists by any means … such as why the Dinosaurs disappeared.

In the realm of astronomy, it gets even dicier. Astronomers argue among themselves how the universe began, with a plethora of theories … some some of them pretty far out. Surely you are familiar with the diversity of these arguments.

Logic is not a science. It is a tool discovered by philosophers who used it to develop various theories, and as said above, even used it to develop the scientific method.

Also, Roger Bacon, a Franciscan priest and philosopher in his writings developed foundational principles for scientific research four centuries before Francis Bacon.

 

[WmJackP]

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?

The fact that you ask the question “why” underlines the reality that humans have a rational mind with a penchant for a rational explanation. And that is exactly what science is, after all—a quest for rational answers to why things are as they are. In the tradition of the so called scientific method, we now have learned approaches or techniques which assist a systematic manner to go about investigating the natural world. Before, of course, we were relegated to gods and superstitions to explain such. What we call science is what we call the process of engaging rational means to answer the “why’s”. What you call faith is belief based on authority or something other than rational modalities of investigation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Wm
**
What you call faith is belief based on authority or something other than rational modalities of investigation. **

Yet faith is not in and of itself irrational. Many scientists, including those living, havew studies the laws of nature, have been able to infer a Lawgiver, and are faith oriented.

 

[inocente]

Name one philosopher who says there is no world and give the passage in which he says it.

You should get one of those beginner’s books on philosophy.

As just one example:
*
Solipsism is first recorded with the Greek presocratic sophist, Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC) who is quoted by the Roman skeptic Sextus Empiricus as having stated:[2]

Nothing exists.
Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it.
Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others. - [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#Metaphysical_solipsism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism#Metaphysical_solipsism)*

Logic is in the province of philosophy, not science. The first developments in modern science were promoted by men who were primarily philosophers. They used logic (a philosophical tool) to develop the principles of scientific research, as when the British philosopher Francis Bacon wrote his famous Novum Organum that became the bible for scientists in Europe and nudged science toward the modern experimental method.

Ah, changing the playing field. No matter. What did all the clever philosophers then do? They became scientists, since it was blindingly obvious that the new science would outstrip ye olde style philosophy at every turn.

*Sorry, but abiogenesis does not conform to any theory of evolution, so evolution cannot even explain the origin of life. Scientists generally agree that this is so. Moreover, many aspects of evolution are purely theoretical and are not subscribed to by all biologists by any means … such as why the Dinosaurs disappeared.

In the realm of astronomy, it gets even dicier. Astronomers argue among themselves how the universe began, with a plethora of theories … some some of them pretty far out. Surely you are familiar with the diversity of these arguments.

Logic is not a science. It is a tool discovered by philosophers who used it to develop various theories, and as said above, even used it to develop the scientific method.

Also, Roger Bacon, a Franciscan priest and philosopher in his writings developed foundational principles for scientific research four centuries before Francis Bacon.*

The theory of evolution is about the origins of species, you don’t expect it to explain origins of gravity so it’s strange you should expect it to explain the origins of organic chemicals. However, discussion of evolution is banned.

But you completely miss the point that there can only be one set of laws. For instance, there can only be one origin of the universe, so by putting forward hypotheses and having them knocked down, we gradually remove possibilities until finally, one day, we may home in on the origin in all its glory. This is how science came to the heliocentric model and how it came to the big bang theory, this is how science progresses.

Meanwhile, philosophers continue to get nowhere because all they have is logic, while science, the much improved version of philosophy, has both logic and evidence.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But you completely miss the point that there can only be one set of laws. For instance, there can only be one origin of the universe,

Interesting that you use a philosophical position to begin your ode to science. Presumably, all philosophers would have to agree that there can only be one set of laws and one origin of the universe. Certainly this could not be based upon evidence since no amount of evidence could substantiate it.

In fact, I think it is a group of scientists who first proposed a multiverse scenario which argues (sans evidence) for a multiplicity of universes, origins and laws to govern them. Interesting, also, how it is scientists who are taking up the speculative mantle of philosophers because they don’t like where the hard evidence is pointing.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Peter Plato - Even if there are/were ‘multiverses’, in the ‘infinity/eternity’ of ‘time/being/essence/dimensionality’ or ‘whatever’ - how could physical temporality and it’s laws ‘pop up’ without there being ‘something’ that in and of itself breaks the rule of ‘cause and effect’? In effect a ‘something’ from which all ‘science’ and substance and reality has ever ‘flowed’.

 

[grannymh]

I really don’t belong in this discussion; however I just spotted this sentence on a link from a link from a…
which, in my humble opinion, would add a bit of outside information to this thread.

“An inductive argument is one in which a generalization is made based on specific
instances so that, provided the premises are true, the conclusion probably
follows.”

While this fascinating sentence can be seen as somewhat reasonable from one angle, it misses the various distinctions between deductive and inductive reasoning. This leads to the faulty proposition that any science is the ultimate authority and if something does not match up with an hypothesis, then that “something” has to be changed. That happens to be the basis for this century’s adaptation of the Heresy of Modernism.

In other words, vocabulary has to be not only precise, but expanded. Otherwise, people are talking past each other.

The inductive method is actually today’s scientific method. What people overlook is that natural evidence has to warrant the conclusion. But since people are not normally aware of what all is involved (and not involved) in the inductive method, the assumption becomes that anything from the material/physical realm of scientists has to be true in all circumstances.

Another concept which can be overlooked is that some scientific endeavors can use both inductive and deductive principles. Without the reality of both - and science and philosophy become polarized.

This link is to an explanation of inductive and deductive reasoning for high school students. Obviously, this simplified link excludes the possibility of the spiritual realm.

batesvilleinschools.com/physics/phynet/aboutscience/Inductive.html

 

[inocente]

I really don’t belong in this discussion; however I just spotted this sentence on a link from a link from a…
which, in my humble opinion, would add a bit of outside information to this thread.

“An inductive argument is one in which a generalization is made based on specific
instances so that, provided the premises are true, the conclusion probably
follows.”

While this fascinating sentence can be seen as somewhat reasonable from one angle, it misses the various distinctions between deductive and inductive reasoning. This leads to the faulty proposition that any science is the ultimate authority and if something does not match up with an hypothesis, then that “something” has to be changed. That happens to be the basis for this century’s adaptation of the Heresy of Modernism.

In other words, vocabulary has to be not only precise, but expanded. Otherwise, people are talking past each other.

The inductive method is actually today’s scientific method. What people overlook is that natural evidence has to warrant the conclusion. But since people are not normally aware of what all is involved (and not involved) in the inductive method, the assumption becomes that anything from the material/physical realm of scientists has to be true in all circumstances.

Another concept which can be overlooked is that some scientific endeavors can use both inductive and deductive principles. Without the reality of both - and science and philosophy become polarized.

This link is to an explanation of inductive and deductive reasoning for high school students. Obviously, this simplified link excludes the possibility of the spiritual realm.

batesvilleinschools.com/physics/phynet/aboutscience/Inductive.html

I get a security warning on that link, it tries to run an application but doesn’t say why or what it’s doing.

Not sure the page is helpful, as he confuses induction with the scientific method and thereby gives the impression that induction is only available to science, but philosophers and for that matter gardeners can use it too.

Although I’ll use the opportunity to make a couple of comments.

Deductive reasoning works fine with something like math where the terms and axioms can be well defined, but one reason why philosophers disagree so much is attempting to apply deduction to concepts such as “consciousness” and “reality”, where there is far too much wiggle room for different interpretations of the words.

Inductive reasoning is inherently probabilistic, since it tries to infer general rules from specifics, while philosophers like to have absolute proofs. But in real life very little can be proved outright. For instance, the reason it says “kills 99.9% of all known germs” on the bottle is that it’s virtually impossible to prove it always kills all of them, even though it probably does.

Although imho the main issue is that philosophers don’t have any means to break down a problem. This means they can’t work on it as a team, and they have no milestones at which they can test whether they’re making progress. Science is just a much more efficient and robust way to gain knowledge.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter Plato - Even if there are/were ‘multiverses’, in the ‘infinity/eternity’ of ‘time/being/essence/dimensionality’ or ‘whatever’ - how could physical temporality and it’s laws ‘pop up’ without there being ‘something’ that in and of itself breaks the rule of ‘cause and effect’? In effect a ‘something’ from which all ‘science’ and substance and reality has ever ‘flowed’.

I do not accept the multiverse as a plausible explanation for the universe. I brought it up to demonstrate to inocente the irony that it is his beloved scientists who are turning to philosophy because the scientific method has brought them to the point of seeing the limitations of evidence and so they are turning towards his version of philosophy, but, alas, not doing it very well, in order to substantiate the premise that matter and therefore evidence is self-explanatory.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
Meanwhile, philosophers continue to get nowhere because all they have is logic, while science, the much improved version of philosophy, has both logic and evidence. **

It seems you are still unable to refute the fact that it was the philosophers who gave us modern science,

As to Gorgias and Solipsism, you had to go back nearly 2,500 years to find an example? Can you find a major philosopher today who has espoused solipsism?

If that’s a way to refute the value of philosophy, why wouldn’t the Lamarckian theory of evolution current at the time of Darwin be a way to refute the value of modern science? Can you find a major biologist today who espouses Lamarck?

**Although imho the main issue is that philosophers don’t have any means to break down a problem. **

Yes, they do. They formulated the principles of science.