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

[JMJ_coder]

It’s not a useful question though.

Philosophers 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).

Philosophy makes no such claims as to its applicability in the pursuit of empirical science. It knows what its competence is. However, proponents of scientism make a universal claim to the applicability of the scientific method and discount all that cannot be learned through its application.

 

[JMJ_coder]

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 they have made the most destructive weapons that are at the limits of man’s imagination (e.g., atomic bombs) and what in the realm of science says these may not be the most prudent things to build?

 

[Tyrion]

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,

Your dignity is not in any danger. You just chose a branch which has already been discarded onto trash-heap of philosophy. The reason is that the logical positivists made a sweeping and self-refuting (meta)-epistemological claim. If you wish to criticize what I actually advocate, you are most welcome. But if you don’t, then you are welcome, too.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Without philosophy science has no rational foundation.
   No one cares, the scientific method is validated by its results not by dudes in ivory towers.

Without philosophy science has no **rational foundation. Results do not explain the principles on which science is based. **Therefore science is not the only form of knowledge.

2. Science is restricted to the physical aspect of life.

And the mental. That kind of covers the lot then.

Science is not the only form of knowledge because it does not explain qualia, insight, intuition, inspiration, discernment, consciousness or free will.

3. Science tells us nothing about spiritual, moral, aesthetic, personal or metaphysical issues.

Let’s just see what the first few lines of the Wikipedia articles have to say…

Social scientists have defined spirituality as the search for “the sacred,” where “the sacred” is broadly defined as that which is set apart from the ordinary and worthy of veneration. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality

Science of morality can refer to a number of ethically naturalistic views. In meta-ethics, ethical naturalism bases morality on rational and empirical consideration of the natural world. This position has become increasingly popular among philosophers in the last three decades. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality

Aesthetics (also spelled æsthetics) is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of art, beauty, and taste, with the creation and appreciation of beauty. It is more scientifically defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics

Psychology is an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors. Psychology has the immediate goal of understanding individuals and groups by both establishing general principles and researching specific cases - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

The scientific study of mental functions does not explain qualia, insight, intuition, inspiration, discernment, consciousness or free will.

Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. Originally, the term “science” (Latin scientia) simply meant “knowledge”. The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

The original meaning of the term does not alter the fact that science is not the only form of knowledge because it does not explain qualia, insight, intuition, inspiration, discernment, consciousness or free will.

 

[tonyrey]

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

Science is intrinsically amoral. It is confined to **impersonal **phenomena.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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?

I think it is about certainty.
Many would say the knowledge we feel most certain about is that which can be demonstrated, repeated by experiment.

Personally that may be true, but most of these “facts” don’t keep one warm at night nor do they keep the nightmares at bay. The most import things in life seem to involve trust and other people (meaning lack of personal control and hence “uncertainty”).

I know which of the two I would prefer … even at the cost of “uncertainty.”

 

[inocente]

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.

Sometimes there is what’s called a spontaneous remission of cancer. An unscientific reaction is to call it a miracle and praise God, which is fine, but the scientific reaction is to then find common factors with other remissions to try to find the causal factors, leading to a cure for others. Refusing to be satisfied with easy answers is part of science’s success.

 

[inocente]

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?

And they have made the most destructive weapons that are at the limits of man’s imagination (e.g., atomic bombs) and what in the realm of science says these may not be the most prudent things to build?

Development of the atom bomb was ordered by President Roosevelt, a Dutch Reformed non-scientist, to protect the US from a first strike by Hitler, a non-scientist birth-Catholic who made Nazism his religion. The bomb’s use was ordered by President Truman, a non-scientist Southern Baptist, to end the war and save lives.

Which is to say that blame games don’t get us anywhere.

Philosophers have helped define warfare (such as Machiavelli and von Clausewitz), along with alternatives to war (such as Gandhi), but of course are useless when it comes to defending us in wartime, you can’t stop a bullet with a rebuttal no matter how well aimed.

Philosophers are masters at one of the causes of conflict - disagreeing with each other.

 

[inocente]

Philosophy makes no such claims as to its applicability in the pursuit of empirical science. It knows what its competence is. However, proponents of scientism make a universal claim to the applicability of the scientific method and discount all that cannot be learned through its application.

Modern science used to be called natural philosophy then it divided off. The part left behind and still called philosophy is fine as a method of thought but the only answers it can produce are the thousands of disagreeing schools of thought.

 

[inocente]

Without philosophy science has no **rational foundation. Results do not explain the principles on which science is based. **Therefore science is not the only form of knowledge.

Which philosophy?

The fact that your mobile phone works verifies that quantum theory makes correct predictions, no matter which school of philosophy you believe explains your phone, quantum mechanics or science in general.

*Science is not the only form of knowledge because it does not explain qualia, insight, intuition, inspiration, discernment, consciousness or free will.

The scientific study of mental functions does not explain qualia, insight, intuition, inspiration, discernment, consciousness or free will.

The original meaning of the term does not alter the fact that science is not the only form of knowledge because it does not explain qualia, insight, intuition, inspiration, discernment, consciousness or free will.*

Not yet. Neuroscience is a very young science, give it time. Patience is a virtue.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Philosophers are masters at one of the causes of conflict - disagreeing with each other.

It is not clear what point you are trying to make here.

Are you advocating “agreement” at the cost of truth?

This sounds like a Dawkinsian argument. Religion is the cause of division therefore religion is ipso facto bad. Of course his argument assumes that division is bad and forgets that there are some things that are, indeed, important enough to not abandon at any cost, whereas you seem to go a step farther and claim that mere disagreements are intrinsically bad and to be avoided at all costs.

Without disagreements there would have been no progress in technology or science. Science has had its share of disagreements going forward and these have been the source of better understanding. The same is/was true in philosophy.

Perhaps for the weak of heart and the weak-minded, disagreements are intolerable. It seems to me that a commitment to the truth and getting it right must necessarily face disagreement from others who have a commitment to what is false, inadequate or clearly wrong/immoral.

The old saying, “if you can’t stand the heat…” has application here.

 

[inocente]

Philosophers are masters at one of the causes of conflict - disagreeing with each other.
Peter Plato;10828493:

It is not clear what point you are trying to make here.

Are you advocating “agreement” at the cost of truth?

Twas an attempt at humor, hence the smiley.

*This sounds like a Dawkinsian argument. Religion is the cause of division therefore religion is ipso facto bad. Of course his argument assumes that division is bad and forgets that there are some things that are, indeed, important enough to not abandon at any cost, whereas you seem to go a step farther and claim that mere disagreements are intrinsically bad and to be avoided at all costs.

Without disagreements there would have been no progress in technology or science. Science has had its share of disagreements going forward and these have been the source of better understanding. The same is/was true in philosophy.

Perhaps for the weak of heart and the weak-minded, disagreements are intolerable. It seems to me that a commitment to the truth and getting it right must necessarily face disagreement from others who have a commitment to what is false, inadequate or clearly wrong/immoral.

The old saying, “if you can’t stand the heat…” has application here.*

No, not at all where I was going.

I was thinking more simply that science has the means to minimize the number of theories – those which win out are the ones that make the widest range of correct predictions and explain the widest range of phenomena. As a result we only have one theory of gravity, and even then we know something’s amiss somewhere since it doesn’t stack up with quantum theory and it would be better to have a single theory covering both.

This just isn’t possible in philosophy, for instance in the philosophy of mind alone we have no way of knowing which if any is correct out of a long (and growing) list - substance dualism, property dualism, predicate dualism, occasionalism, behaviorism, functionalism, emergentism, idealism, neutral monism, supervenience physcialism, reductive physicalism, epiphenomenalism, …

 

[PetrusRomanus]

Sometimes there is what’s called a spontaneous remission of cancer. An unscientific reaction is to call it a miracle and praise God, which is fine, but the scientific reaction is to then find common factors with other remissions to try to find the causal factors, leading to a cure for others. Refusing to be satisfied with easy answers is part of science’s success.

I wasnt alluding to this situation, but rather a situation in which a person will surely die from cancer. You know in their heart, in the back of their mind they are thinking.of God, the possibility of God, reflecting upon their life, etc even for the most hardened atheist I am nearly certain. When science can no longer help or is of no use.for this person, they are left to thinking aboht death and what follows. This is a situation far out of science’s hands, but not God’s.

Also, if cancer spontaneously remits and they find out what caused it to remit medically, whos to say God is not responsible for it still? Just because we can identify medically doesntnegate that God caused it to remit medically.

People really should be reminded of that joke where the man is stranded on his roof and rejects the boats,.helicopters, and people trying to save him. Then he dies and.asks God why he didnt help him and God says, “but I did. I sent you boats, helicopters and people to help you”

 

[tonyrey]

No one cares, the scientific method is validated by its results not by dudes in ivory towers. You could close the philosophy department of every university, and science would still cure diseases and put men on the Moon just the same. Without philosophy science has no **rational foundation. Results do not explain the principles on which science is based. **Therefore science is not the only form of knowledge.

No response.

1. Science is restricted to the physical aspect of life.

And the mental. That kind of covers the lot then. Science is not the only form of knowledge because it does not explain qualia, insight, intuition, inspiration, discernment, consciousness or free will.

No response.

3. Science tells us nothing about spiritual, moral, aesthetic, personal or metaphysical issues.

Let’s just see what the first few lines of the Wikipedia articles have to say…The scientific study of mental functions does not explain qualia, insight, intuition, inspiration, discernment, consciousness or free will.

No response.

Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. Originally, the term “science” (Latin scientia) simply meant “knowledge”.

The original meaning of the term does not alter the fact that science is not the only form of knowledge because it does not explain qualia, insight, intuition, inspiration, discernment, consciousness or free will.

No response.

Not yet. Neuroscience is a very young science, give it time. Patience is a virtue.

Do you believe **all **human activity is in principle neuroscientifically explicable?

The fact that your mobile phone works verifies that quantum theory makes correct predictions, no matter which school of philosophy you believe explains your phone, quantum mechanics or science in general.

Irrelevant.

 

[Tyrion]

Not yet. Neuroscience is a very young science, give it time. Patience is a virtue.

I keep wondering… how many of these people still think that the brain is only an organ which is used to cool the blood… after all that is what Aristotle said, and whatever Aristotle said is beyond dispute.

Neuroscience is barely a few decades old, and it deals with the most complicated organ known so far. It has discovered a lot about its “workings”, although that probably does not even account for a fraction of the whole picture. I wonder what kind of prediction are these people willing to make? Shall science be still unable to discover the intricacies of the brain + mind … say in 10 thousand years? Or a million years?

Their pessimism is funny.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

I keep wondering… how many of these people still think that the brain is only an organ which is used to cool the blood… after all that is what Aristotle said, and whatever Aristotle said is beyond dispute.

Neuroscience is barely a few decades old, and it deals with the most complicated organ known so far. It has discovered a lot about its “workings”, although that probably does not even account for a fraction of the whole picture. I wonder what kind of prediction are these people willing to make? Shall science be still unable to discover the intricacies of the brain + mind … say in 10 thousand years? Or a million years?

Their pessimism is funny.

Science always cops out with things like this. “science is ok with saying we dont know right now.” Yet when a believer makes the same comment about something so spiritually complex, people say “Thats not a good answer.”

 

[inocente]

I wasnt alluding to this situation, but rather a situation in which a person will surely die from cancer. You know in their heart, in the back of their mind they are thinking.of God, the possibility of God, reflecting upon their life, etc even for the most hardened atheist I am nearly certain. When science can no longer help or is of no use.for this person, they are left to thinking aboht death and what follows. This is a situation far out of science’s hands, but not God’s.

OK, but I think people only get to that point when they know science can no longer help.

Also if they have never thought of God until that late stage, their thoughts may simply be a coping mechanism, a great comfort but not based on any firm foundation.

*Also, if cancer spontaneously remits and they find out what caused it to remit medically, whos to say God is not responsible for it still? Just because we can identify medically doesntnegate that God caused it to remit medically.

People really should be reminded of that joke where the man is stranded on his roof and rejects the boats,.helicopters, and people trying to save him. Then he dies and.asks God why he didnt help him and God says, “but I did. I sent you boats, helicopters and people to help you” *

Agreed, God helps those who help themselves, and exploring creation through science helps us to know its Creator.

Science always cops out with things like this. “science is ok with saying we dont know right now.” Yet when a believer makes the same comment about something so spiritually complex, people say “Thats not a good answer.”

It’s not a cop out to have the integrity to admit when something isn’t known rather than pretending to know.

When you say “cops out” and “believer”, do you mean one of the many Catholic scientists in the world?

 

[Tyrion]

Science always cops out with things like this. “science is ok with saying we dont know right now.” Yet when a believer makes the same comment about something so spiritually complex, people say “Thats not a good answer.”

And the reason for that is very simple… science has an incredibly good “track record”.

People make all sorts of bad starts, bad hypotheses, incorrect explanations - but since nothing is sacred, and everything is up for criticism, and because the scientists are also fallible people with all sorts of “despicable” attitudes - like jealousy and envy - they will try to poke holes into their colleague’s pet theory, and eventually, someone will come up with a theory, which will withstand the relentless attacks, will prove to be good enough to keep - at least temporarily, until someone comes up with something better.

The good reason for the optimism is precisely that good track record. What you call “cop out” is actually an intellectually honest admission of the current ignorance and the expression of a well deserved optimism.

What can you bring up in your “defense”? I keep asking about the epistemological method to find out if the propositions of religion are true of false, and all I get is evasion and silence. There is no reason to trust the claims of religion, precisely because there is no objective epistemological method to separate the “wheat” from the “chaff”. How can you “prove” that there are demons, who cause physical illnesses? Or guardian angels, who are supposed to protect people?

 

[inocente]

Neuroscience is barely a few decades old, and it deals with the most complicated organ known so far. It has discovered a lot about its “workings”, although that probably does not even account for a fraction of the whole picture. I wonder what kind of prediction are these people willing to make? Shall science be still unable to discover the intricacies of the brain + mind … say in 10 thousand years? Or a million years?

Somehow philosophers imagined they could explain the most complicated thing in the known universe just by thinking really hard, so it’s not surprising they’ve never got anywhere.

They’re still arguing about what they mean by consciousness.

 

[inocente]

No response.

The way you laid out those quotes makes it look like I posted things you actually said.

I responded to all your points - see post #66.

You also rearranged my response and forgot to answer my question, here it is again:

tonyrey;10828224:

Without philosophy science has no **rational **

foundation. Results do not explain** the principles on which science is based. **Therefore science is not the only form of knowledge.
Which philosophy?

Please answer, which school of philosophy do you think gives science a rational foundation.

Do you believe **all **human activity is in principle neuroscientifically explicable?

Yes.

inocente;10828322:

The fact that your mobile phone works verifies that quantum theory makes correct predictions, no matter which school of philosophy you believe explains your phone, quantum mechanics or science in general.

Irrelevant.

Then it seems we’re agreed that philosophy is irrelevant to quantum theory making correct predictions.