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

[Al_Moritz]

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

In the most narrow sense it may be right that atheism makes no positive metaphysical claims. But in real-world terms it is plainly false. Virtually all atheists (a few exceptions granted) are naturalists. And naturalism is a positive metaphysical claim.

Also a positive metaphysical claim is your assertion that a ‘scientific epistemological method’ (in a strict or broader sense, whatever the latter may mean) is the only valid one.

You had asked:

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

I asked back:

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

You have evaded an answer. I am waiting.

 

[Al_Moritz]

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

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

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

Yes, I agree.

 

[Al_Moritz]

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

You seem to forget that science arose from a discipline called natural philosophy.

 

[Al_Moritz]

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

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

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

Very well said. That’s the point.

 

[Al_Moritz]

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

In the most narrow sense it may be right that atheism (under its newer definition of ‘lack of belief’) makes no positive metaphysical claims. But in real-world terms it is plainly false. Virtually all atheists (a few exceptions granted) are naturalists. And naturalism is a positive metaphysical claim.

Also a positive metaphysical claim is your assertion that a ‘scientific epistemological method’ (in a strict or broader sense, whatever the latter may mean) is the only valid one.

You had asked:

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

I asked back:

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

You have evaded an answer. I am waiting.

 

[Tyrion]

Also a positive metaphysical claim is your assertion that a ‘scientific epistemological method’ (in a strict or broader sense, whatever the latter may mean) is the only valid one.

No, it WOULD BE a (meta)epistemological claim, not a metaphysical one, if I asserted that. BUT, I already accepted (provisionally, of course) that you might have an “alternate” epistemological method pertaining to the “alternate” non-physical reality, and I - politely! - asked you to elaborate. Instead of doing so, you repeatedly tried to evade the answer against the forum rules.

There are different “methods” for substantiating metaphysical claims and epistemological claims. Naturally so, since they are different disciplines. Your answer still indicates that you do not understand the difference between them.

Of, course the validity of the scientific epistemological method of obtaining knowledge about the objective, external reality has been amply established by the innumerable applications of this method. No, it cannot be applied to itself, because it is not a claim about the ontological objects of reality, it is a claim about obtaining knowledge about the ontological objects of reality. It is very sad to see that this simple distinction escapes most of the posters, and they keep on “demanding” to apply the method to something it cannot be applied to. Of course these demands only reveal their ignorance.

I asked back:

According to the forum rules, you are not allowed to answer a question with another question. Even apart from the rules, it is very bad form, because it indicates the lack of intellectual honesty to admit that you don’t have an answer.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=188543

Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so.

So, please return to your own assertion (post #25: “There is epistemology that does not rely on what is measurable, as science does.”) that there is an “alternate” epistemological method gain knowledge about the purported “alternate” non-physical reality. Either tell about this “method”, or admit that you don’t have one. You asserted that you have a “philosophy-based” answer, so kindly stop referring to “faith” and “revelation”. Stick to secular, philosophical methods. And apply your “alternate” epistemological method to those few sample propositions I already asked. How can I decide if those propositions evaluate to “true” or “false”. Concentrate on them. This “dance” to evade the question is getting boring.

 

[Kevin12]

Anyone who thinks this, including scientists is wrong, but not for the obvious reason that is implied here about Faith. Which is mistaken, because Faith brings us to belief, not knowledge.

But anyway, the absolute source of anything worth being called knowledge is philosophy - without epistemology, knowledge is impossible because we have no criteria from determining what knowledge is. In the end, though, what people who have such an epistemology are seeking is not knowledge, which is metaphysical, but simply data. A true scientist would always deny that certain things are known and others unknown - they only care about data that seems to fit with recurring, predictable phenomenon, as they should when doing science.

The reason lots of people approach have a completely physicalist epistemology outside of the actually activity of science is, well, when was the last time you saw a miracle? I have never in my life beheld particular phenomenon in my life for which a natural explanation was impossible. Few have. The only thing the vast majority of us can do is determine whether or not those who claim they have seen these things were frauds or not, and it shouldn’t be hard to understand why people would have trouble believing that something seemingly impossible has happened.

 

[Semangelof]

According to the forum rules, you are not allowed to answer a question with another question. Even apart from the rules, it is very bad form, because it indicates the lack of intellectual honesty to admit that you don’t have an answer.

(from sig)I am already familiar with faith-based (theological) arguments, so don’t waste your time to repeat them.

Since you are already familiar with faith-based arguments and since atheism is the only school here to claim scientific knowledge of God not existing. I will break the stalemate and ask you the same question as Al Moritz.

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

 

[mek42]

In my mind, information and knowledge are different. For me, knowledge is that which can be proven, making knowledge a subset of information, as, to me, information is that which can be learned, and thus includes falsehoods, provable facts and the unprovable.

In my paradigm, science is the source of the majority of my knowledge. That which I choose to accept as an act of faith I do not consider to be knowledge. Valuable information to be sure, but not knowledge.

 

[Kevin12]

Of, course the validity of the scientific epistemological method of obtaining knowledge about the objective, external reality has been amply established by the innumerable applications of this method. No, it cannot be applied to itself, because it is not a claim about the ontological objects of reality, it is a claim about obtaining knowledge about the ontological objects of reality. It is very sad to see that this simple distinction escapes most of the posters, and they keep on “demanding” to apply the method to something it cannot be applied to. Of course these demands only reveal their ignorance.

Using empirical evidence to obtain knowledge about the ontological objects of reality isn’t as simple as you make it sound. Especially if you are going to use the word “objective”.

 

[Kevin12]

Since you are already familiar with faith-based arguments and since atheism is the only school here to claim scientific knowledge of God not existing. I will break the stalemate and ask you the same question as Al Moritz.

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

Atheism doesn’t claim anything of the the sort. Existentialist atheists, like Jean-Paul Sartre, dismiss most if not all of science’s claims to knowledge. Heck, there is even a form of Hinduism that has atheism (denial of the existence of a Supreme Being) as one of its tenets.

 

[Semangelof]

Atheism doesn’t claim anything of the the sort. Existentialist atheists, like Jean-Paul Sartre, dismiss most if not all of science’s claims to knowledge. Heck, there is even a form of Hinduism that has atheism (denial of the existence of a Supreme Being) as one of its tenets.

True it would be unfair for me to lump them all together, just as it would be unfair to lump them all out of that belief as you have just done. But here I am referring to the kind that attempts to make that claim, I’m speaking within the context of this thread and it’s responses, and not broadly since the broad aspects are not relevant to the scope of the thread.

But yes there are truly many types/schools of theists and atheists.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

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

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

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

Science itself is a revelation of knowledge from God. So going to the doctor in a life or death situation is fine and would only make sense. Science has its place clearly, but it isnt the only place, which is my point.

 

[Tyrion]

In my mind, information and knowledge are different.

You are correct. Information is simply “raw data”. Knowledge would be internalized information, which either (1) correctly reflects the state of affairs of the objective, external reality, or (2) which is the logical corollary some axiomatic set (as long as the axioms are logically consistent).

For me, knowledge is that which can be proven, making knowledge a subset of information, as, to me, information is that which can be learned, and thus includes falsehoods, provable facts and the unprovable.

Exactly. Before someone will nitpick about the word “proven”, let’s make sure we differentiate between the “proof” of the abstract sciences, and the “substantiation” of the empirical sciences. It is a bit frustrating that this distinction needs to be repeated ad-nauseam, but there are some people who will use even somewhat imprecise language as an excuse to derail a conversation.

 

[Tyrion]

Using empirical evidence to obtain knowledge about the ontological objects of reality isn’t as simple as you make it sound. Especially if you are going to use the word “objective”.

The link you provided is inapplicable.
From the Article:

“The paper is an attack on two central aspects of the logical positivists’ philosophy.”

It deals with one branch of philosophy, called “logical positivism”, which was a short lived, and properly discarded concept. Maybe there a few people who subscribe to it, but then again, there are all kinds of “weirdo”-s out there.

No materialist that I know of adheres to it, so bringing is up is a straw-man argument. No need to waste time on it.

 

[Steinway]

Eh.

Why “Eh”, that’s what the Bible says: "Romans 1:20 affirms that God’s existence is “clearly perceived in the things that have been made”

ArguingWithAtheists.com/Pages/Intelligent_Design.htm

 

[Kevin12]

The link you provided is inapplicable.

It deals with one branch of philosophy, called “logical positivism”, which was a short lived, and properly discarded concept. Maybe there a few people who subscribe to it, but then again, there are all kinds of “weirdo”-s out there.

No materialist that I know of adheres to it, so bringing is up is a straw-man argument. No need to waste time on it.

Just to preserve a small amount of my dignity - I respect your views and would love to debate on the matter, but I just don’t want to, I don’t think it would be any fun at all. I’ve got enough on my mind trying not to bang my head on the table every time I encounter an ultra-traditionalists here, which is quite often.

 

[polytropos]

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

And it would still create tear gas, guns, drones, and atomic bombs. Why don’t you tout all of the achievements of science when it is divorced from its philosophical underpinnings?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Thomas Dolby had a hit song titled: She blinded me with science. I can’t help but feel that Mr Dolby wasn’t joking. I believe that earthly science is largely a scam.

 

[TARSUS_PADDY]

Science, knowledge, intellect and faith are all aspects of the Supreme Father or the Supreme Intelligence. They are all unfathomable. Some of us appear to think that we can supply all the answers because we have possibly a greater intellect than others. Strange that high intellect tends to undermine faith. Given that science and knowledge is really a desperate attempt to find God … God created it in the first place!..are we really not chasing our tails without realising it? Science only exists because our curiosity put it there and we gave it the status it holds in todays world…Faith exists because it was passed on to us by our parents and then reinforced in the course of our lifetime through belief in times of hardship and by good old fashioned logic…and as time draws us closer and closer to the cask our faith multiplies exponentially (darned science again!!!)
KEEP THE FAITH FOLKS