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

[Peter_Plato]

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.

The means by which philosophers break down a problem is called deduction. If a premise is taken to be true, it is possible to deduce conclusions that come from the premise. If patently false conclusions (reductio ad absurdum) or conclusions that contradict accepted understanding arise, then the premise is taken to be false. Deduction, and logic generally, is the method of philosophy. Science can validate premises by using the workings of nature to see if these premises are true about the physical world. Philosophy can validate premises by using what is known to see if premises are self-contradictory or contradict anything about the “known” world, not just the physical world, although scientific knowledge serves in deduction, as well. Philosophy has a much wider sphere than science.

You might consider a mechanic who works strictly on fixing a particular make and model of vehicle or who works strictly on transmissions to be more “efficient and robust” than one who takes on all kinds of mechanical contraptions, but that is simply because the mechanic has limited his sphere of concern to increase efficiency. That doesn’t entail all other mechanical devices have simply ceased to exist simply because efficiency has improved (the error of your proof in the pudding paradigm.) Perhaps other realities have ceased to exist as far as the scientist is concerned, but that is precisely the limitation of his concern. Philosophers are concerned with all possible reality, scientists with physical reality alone.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peter
**
Philosophers are concerned with all possible reality, scientists with physical reality alone. **

Yes. For examples: Ethics; Politics; Aesthetics; History; Theology (Natural); just to name several. Science is hopelessly hand-tied and tongue-tied with respect to these types of knowledge.

And these types of knowledge are far from useless.

“I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.” Einstein. letter to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944. EA 61-574.

 

[WmJackP]

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.

How is pure faith rationally based? Or stated another way, how is belief based on no more than “say-so” rationally based? Here is my argument:

1. First, I am certain that you must agree with me that to be believed a proposition must be worthy of belief. And you surely would agree that this is particularly so in the case of extraordinary claims.

For example, if you had known someone for a number of years, knew this person to be always logical and honest in his observations, trusted this person with every fiber of your being, never knew him to act deceitfully or dysfunctionally. Yet, one day he claimed to have had an alien abduction. Wouldn’t you demand evidence of his claim rather than accept the proposition on the basis of faith in his veracity (regardless of whatever his credentials might have been or whatever his history with you may have been) ?

I2. f you are like me, I suspect you would demand the most rigorous proof and that you would carefully examine his oral reporting to insure that it was free of fraud and that his statements were free of impaired or delusional thinking. And even if you found no flaw in his statements and even with perfect consistency in his reporting, you most likely would hold belief still in suspense because without objective evidence, without corroborating physical evidence, the acceptance of such a bizarre claim is contra intuitive and not worthy of belief.

1. Hence, my problems with what you call the scriptures which, at least from my studies, contain sufficient internal inconsistency and enough historic contradiction to disqualify them as a basis for my belief. This is of course to overlook the abject lack of any corroborating physical evidence. There are too many competing and plausible explanations for how Christianity arose and how its doctrines were formed than to credit the NT, for example, with being an accurate description.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jack
**
Hence, my problems with what you call the scriptures which, at least from my studies, contain sufficient internal inconsistency and enough historic contradiction to disqualify them as a basis for my belief. This is of course to overlook the abject lack of any corroborating physical evidence. There are too many competing and plausible explanations for how Christianity arose and how its doctrines were formed than to credit the NT, for example, with being an accurate description. **

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light."

Not quite an abject lack of corroborating evidence.

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in *God and the Astronomers.
*
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

 

[tonyrey]

Peter
**
Philosophers are concerned with all possible reality, scientists with physical reality alone. **

Yes. For examples: Ethics; Politics; Aesthetics; History; Theology (Natural); just to name several. Science is hopelessly hand-tied and tongue-tied with respect to these types of knowledge.

And these types of knowledge are far from useless.

“I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.” Einstein. letter to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944. EA 61-574.

:clapping: Unlike many scientists - and all opponents of philosophy - Einstein could see the wood and not just the trees…

 

[tonyrey]

Peter
**
Philosophers are concerned with all possible reality, scientists with physical reality alone. **

Yes. For examples: Ethics; Politics; Aesthetics; History; Theology (Natural); just to name several. Science is hopelessly hand-tied and tongue-tied with respect to these types of knowledge.

And these types of knowledge are far from useless.

“I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.” Einstein. letter to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944. EA 61-574.

:clapping: Unlike many scientists - and opponents of philosophy - Einstein could see the wood and not just the trees.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Tony

**Unlike many scientists - and opponents of philosophy - Einstein could see the wood and not just the trees. **

For all his protests against the idea of a personal God, Einstein was not able to overcome the philosophical implications of the laws of physics. Where there are laws, there must be a Lawgiver. In this he identified himself with the religion (natural theology) of the philosopher Spinoza.

 

[inocente]

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

I didn’t try to refute it, I said all the good philosophers then switched over to science, leaving behind only those who weren’t talented enough to get a science job.

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?

I already answered your question, no point adding conditions now.

Gorgias lived 483–375 BC, Plato 427-347 BC. You chucking out Plato as well, he not modern enough for you either? Good job Jesus isn’t a philosopher, exactly how modern do you want? How about Descartes, Berkley, and at times apparently Wittgenstein (“I am my world”).

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?

Thanks for providing an example of how science progresses, very generous of you.

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

And promptly all the philosophers capable of such feats moved over to science, and never looked back.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
And promptly all the philosophers capable of such feats moved over to science, and never looked back. **

No they didn’t, as the quote from Einstein clearly indicates; scientists who refuse to philosophize cannot see the forest for the trees.

“I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.” Albert Einstein. letter to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944. EA 61-574.

 

[inocente]

inocente
**
And promptly all the philosophers capable of such feats moved over to science, and never looked back. **

No they didn’t, as the quote from Einstein clearly indicates; scientists who refuse to philosophize cannot see the forest for the trees.

“I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.” Albert Einstein. letter to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944. EA 61-574.

Earlier on the thread you were criticizing Einstein’s lack of wisdom, now you quote his wisdom.



My, what a difference a few weeks make. But let’s not get into that again.

In any case you’re proving my point for me. I said all the capable guys became scientists, and Einstein is an example. He chose science because his abilities would have been wasted as a mere philosopher.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Earlier on the thread you were criticizing Einstein’s lack of wisdom, now you quote his wisdom.



My, what a difference a few weeks make. But let’s not get into that again.

In any case you’re proving my point for me. I said all the capable guys became scientists, and Einstein is an example. He chose science because his abilities would have been wasted as a mere philosopher.

A perfect example of “not seeing the forest.” Inocente has a “Heinz 57” philosophy which quite simply is a hash of whatever thoughts he considers useful or enticing and groups them into a “proof in the pudding” metaphysic which essentially means anything could be true at any time depending upon whether it is utile at that moment. He proposes this admixture of trees to be, not a forest, not a philosophy, but rather “knowledge,” to which he endows the unique and unassailable characteristic of not being subject to the critique of philosophy since it is not a philosophy. He has safely ensconced himself in an ivory tower that is not an ivory tower according to his determination because only philosophers live in ivory towers and he is definitely not one of those. He is not a “swan” because he is not ivory white, but rather black and everybody knows all swans are white. All philosophers are wrong and inocente is not one of those because if he is anything, he is not wrong.

Inocente can spin any insight or argument to his advantage simply because he has no particular loyalty or point of view to which any idea must adhere or that he must defend. He is free to accept or reject as he pleases because utility is a discretionary medium and owing to that “fact” there is no way to determine inocente’s view to be mistaken or untrue. To be untrue means to not be useful and inocente, by definition, only accepts things that are useful and therefore only accepts what is true, whatever that may be. The true is defined as whatever inocente accepts as useful (a la Euthyphro) and the proof of that “pudding” is that it has been found to be useful by inocente. Unimpeachable and infallible “logic” which is not subject to the rules of logic because inocente has determined philosophical logic to not be useful to the making of pudding. Since the “proof” is in the pudding and logic is not “in” the pudding, ergo, the proof is not “in” logic, but rather “in” the pudding, unfailingly in any pudding inocente finds appetizing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

How does Einstein’s point that “A knowledge of … historic and philosophical background gives … independence from prejudices … from which most scientists are suffering…” translate into “all the capable guys became scientists?”

Einstein, then, was claiming “prejudices” are actually positive capabilities that scientists possess (suffer from) above philosophers? In what possible universe could that even remotely be true?

…all the capable guys became scientists, and Einstein is an example. He chose science because his abilities would have been wasted as a mere philosopher.

:tsktsk: :banghead: :nope: :doh2: :dts: :yawn:

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
Earlier on the thread you were criticizing Einstein’s lack of wisdom, now you quote his wisdom.**

Yes, Einstein lacked wisdom concerning nuclear weapons… Probably because he was not a better philosopher than he was.

He chose science because his abilities would have been wasted as a mere philosopher.

That’s a bizarre interpretation of Einstein’s quote given. He tips his hat to the philosophers and you think he was talking about “mere” philosophers?

Where do you see the word “mere” describing philosophy or philosophers in this passage?

“I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.” Einstein. letter to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944. EA 61-574.

Stop pretending you know better than Einstein what Einstein was talking about.

 

[inocente]

Yes, Einstein lacked wisdom concerning nuclear weapons… Probably because he was not a better philosopher than he was.

You already said he lacked wisdom, now you say he could have been a better philosopher, so why on earth are you quoting him?

He chose science because his abilities would have been wasted as a mere philosopher.

That’s a bizarre interpretation of Einstein’s quote given. He tips his hat to the philosophers and you think he was talking about “mere” philosophers?

Where do you see the word “mere” describing philosophy or philosophers in this passage?

“I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.” Einstein. letter to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944. EA 61-574.

Stop pretending you know better than Einstein what Einstein was talking about.

You need to make up your mind about Einstein, one week you say he’s a fool, next week he’s your hero again.

If you have to blow, blow hot or blow cold and stick with it.

But it may have escaped your attention that he chose science as his vocation, and he is writing about the philosophy of science, and is responding to a letter by a young philosopher of science who is beginning a new job teaching science.

Did you spot the theme yet? These are two guys with sufficient nous to understand that knowledge comes from empiricism, a posteriori not a priori, while those without that nous languish in philosophy departments, not selected for playing on the science team.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You already said he lacked wisdom, now you say he could have been a better philosopher, so why on earth are you quoting him?

You need to make up your mind about Einstein, one week you say he’s a fool, next week he’s your hero again.

If you have to blow, blow hot or blow cold and stick with it.

But it may have escaped your attention that he chose science as his vocation, and he is writing about the philosophy of science, and is responding to a letter by a young philosopher of science who is beginning a new job teaching science.

Did you spot the theme yet? These are two guys with sufficient nous to understand that knowledge comes from empiricism, a posteriori not a priori, while those without that nous languish in philosophy departments, not selected for playing on the science team.

Once again, the Either/Or comes into play. Reduce everything to either/or, reject the either and choose the or. The only reason you resolve Einstein’s dilemma in the way you do is because you see it as a dilemma, rather than an observation. Einstein was observing something about the value of philosophy in order to make the case that philosophy has intrinsic value even for scientists who think, like you, that science is self-sufficient; self-fulfilling or self-approving, perhaps, but not self-sufficient.

I didn’t realize scientists were “called” or “chosen,” I was under the impression that they chose the field, not “were selected” for the team. Sounds like one way to skew objectivity by choosing “like-minded” individuals to entrench a mind-set. Very nepotistic.

You sound like a sports fan trumpeting (blowing hot) his pick for the winning team. I am sure that when science is found wanting, you will quickly change sides and cheer the new winning team with the same single-minded enthusiasm you do now. And you will be just as mistaken then as you are now precisely because, as Einstein pointed out, a knowledge of the historic and philosophic background might help you to see beyond your current fetish.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**inocente

You need to make up your mind about Einstein, one week you say he’s a fool, next week he’s your hero again.**

Peter Plato has got your number.

It seems to be your impression that a man must always be a wise man or always lack wisdom.

It isn’t that simplistic. Plato and Aristotle erred from time to time. That does not mean they were not capable of great wisdom.

Your either/or strategy in real life just doesn’t work.

 

[Robin_des_Bois]

Let’s not forget that science atleast is based objective evidence, which is not the case for religion it seems.

 

[grannymh]

Let’s not forget that science atleast is based objective evidence, which is not the case for religion it seems.

While science does use objective evidence, there are times when the given evidence does not warrant the conclusion or the subsequent interpretation.
It is – Reader Beware!

 

[tonyrey]

Let’s not forget that science at least is based objective evidence, which is not the case for religion it seems.

Science is based on two philosophical principles it cannot explain because they are beyond its scope:

1. The power of reason
2. The intelligibility of the universe

Both these principles are based on an act of faith which is only rational if the power of reason and the intelligibility of the universe are due to Design. Otherwise science exists in an irrational, valueless and purposeless vacuum in which objective evidence is an illusion.

 

[tonyrey]

Tony

**Unlike many scientists - and opponents of philosophy - Einstein could see the wood and not just the trees. **

For all his protests against the idea of a personal God, Einstein was not able to overcome the philosophical implications of the laws of physics. Where there are laws, there must be a Lawgiver. In this he identified himself with the religion (natural theology) of the philosopher Spinoza.

Charlie, Einstein could see beyond the trees but not beyond the wood!