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

[Semangelof]

If God can be proven, there is no longer an act of faith. Would not, then, any such proof be a heresy?

What do you mean by proven? I don’t know of any theist argument that proves God exists, rather there are arguments that prove the belief is more rational than it’s disbelief or at the very least rational enough to prove it as a valid contender.

I think they are successful in drawing someone from atheism to agnosticism with a positive leaning toward God. But only faith could beguile that person to completion.

 

[Kevin12]

And why should we care what they say? “Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds” - attrib.Richard Feynman.

I don’t think that was orginally about philosophy of science. I recall reading it in reference to why Nabakov or any other novelists should be teaching a literature class.

However, whatever it refers to, I think there have been thinkers who have pointed out that this little chesnut is probably not true - if birds could learn about ornithology, it would be quite beneficial to them, just as anthropology, psychology and medicine are to us.

Also, to answer your question, “Please can you name some philosophers in this branch who have provided rational foundations for science?” - Bertrand Russel, Rene Descartes, David Hume, etc.

 

[tonyrey]

Sorry but I can’t face getting into another round of long multi-quote posts, so leaving out the questions that have nothing to do with my post, i.e. with validation of the scientific method, my answers are: 4. Far more important than any school of philosophy, yes. 5. More so than any philosophical system such as utilitarianism. 6. Better than any philosophical argument. 7. More so than any philosophical argument.

There is no excuse whatsoever for evading the questions because they are directly relevant to the topic - which is also applicable to your answers :

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

The answers that you have given require justification.

 

[grannymh]

It is no big deal that natural science cannot put the spiritual under its proverbial microscope. Human beings are equipped with the tools of reason, self-reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. These tools can be used instead of lab equipment to discover the truth of the non-material aspects of human life.

 

[Tyrion]

There are 5 of these arguments that can be found here.

Here are hundreds of “proofs” for God’s existence… So what? Even if one would be valid and coherent, it would only “prove” a faceless “something”, which would have no connection to the Christian deity. You seemed to shy away to answer those **specific **questions I posited. Not that I am surprised, it is par for the course. Maybe someone sometime will answer them, but I do not hold my breath.

 

[Semangelof]

Here are hundreds of “proofs” for God’s existence… So what? Even if one would be valid and coherent, it would only “prove” a faceless “something”, which would have no connection to the Christian deity. You seemed to shy away to answer those **specific **questions I posited. Not that I am surprised, it is par for the course. Maybe someone sometime will answer them, but I do not hold my breath.

That is quite an accusation. You ask me straw-men questions some of which I don’t even believe and I am expected to prove them? Not only that you outright ignore my first question and then accuse me of dodging questions and others of answering a question with a question.

Things have an order to explanation. It makes more sense to show that there is a God first and then that X is that God. If you do not believe that God exists it would be a waste of my time to try to prove that X religion is anything. There are also arguments to show that the Christian/Judaic God is a reasonable and rational assessment of God so I don’t know why you would behave as if there is some weakness there that is suspiciously hidden.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

Here are hundreds of “proofs” for God’s existence… So what? Even if one would be valid and coherent, it would only “prove” a faceless “something”, which would have no connection to the Christian deity. You seemed to shy away to answer those **specific **questions I posited. Not that I am surprised, it is par for the course. Maybe someone sometime will answer them, but I do not hold my breath.

The question of “is it the Christian God?” is the easy part. He already came to earth to tell us that He was where no other deity has done so outside of mythology

 

[PetrusRomanus]

If God can be proven, there is no longer an act of faith. Would not, then, any such proof be a heresy?

The Apostles saw Jesus face to face, saw His miracles. Theirfaith was built upon those things, not destroyed.

And also, knowing of God and His existence isnt the same as seeing Him.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

**Do you think theism, Christianity and other religions require us to remain in ignorance about our biology? **

No, of course not. Just the contrary. It was out of Medieval Catholic Europe that science really began to take off. Learn some science history and stop supposing that science never really became science until Darwin and the agnostic revolution.

**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. **

Not so fast!

The existence of the bomb was first conceived and promoted by scientists, who in the infinite wisdom could bare contain themselves from announcing this wonderful new methods of destruction. You would think scientists, whom you seem to idolize as the best of thinkers, could have thought themselves out of what they had discovered. Einstein finally did, too late, after the first detonations of the A-bomb.

The logic of wisdom, which was around long before the logic of science, is a logic of head and heart combined. How does the decision to promote the bomb with politicians strike you as wisdom?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

“Pope Pius XII likewise condemned the bombings, expressing a view in keeping with the traditional Roman Catholic position that “every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man.” The Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano commented in its August 7, 1945, issue: “This war provides a catastrophic conclusion. Incredibly this destructive weapon remains as a temptation for posterity, which, we know by bitter experience, learns so little from history.”

ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

 

[Peter_Plato]

In your hurry you didn’t stop to notice that it’s hardly surprising philosophers can’t explain consciousness when 250 years after Kant they don’t even agree on the definition of the word.

Peter, any chance that on this thread you’ll read what’s written rather than jumping straight in and forcing me to repeat everything?

That is because your first rendering of an argument requires so much emendation in order to resemble an actual argument.

To answer your point, perhaps philosophers laid much of the groundwork for science before the practical sciences usurped the knowledge and applied it towards practical benefit. Just because scientists have had the final practical success, does not mean that success was not grounded in the conceptual framework laid down by philosophers.

As to consciousness, neither have any of the practical sciences explained what it is, nor do they agree on how it arises. Your argument is a non sequitur because the subject of consciousness may be incredibly more complex and far beyond the explanatory power of science to deal with, so the fact that philosophers have made little headway understanding consciousness does not argue an iota for the superiority of science. Perhaps a dose of philosophy would help you sort through some of your misconceptions,

 

[inocente]

If God can be proven, there is no longer an act of faith. Would not, then, any such proof be a heresy?

Yes, since it no such proof can exist.

 

[inocente]

The point is that you will accept the positive applications of science but not the negative applications. Whether they are good or bad is not a scientific matter. Science is just a method of inquiry. The fact that it has produced many good results (ignoring the bad) does not make it the only valuable type of knowledge.

Nope, all applications accepted, the more the merrier. The issue is who decides what is positive and negative. Is birth control positive or negative? A reduction in disease is positive but it leads to population explosion, is that positive?

*I’m not arguing that philosophy in the past 100 years has been good or applicable - and I would hesitate to call much of it a “breakthrough.” But the philosophies of communism, Naziism, and liberalism have shaped the world pretty substantially in the last 100 years. If I weren’t restricted to the last 100 years I could mention any modern philosopher. Let’s say, for example, John Locke and Adam Smith.

Which is not to say that these philosophies had positive impacts on the world, but they did have impacts* on the world which were not scientific in the modern sense. If anything their failures accentuate the need for good philosophy, which science cannot substitute, because methodological science is not the only way that anyone thinks.

I’d hesitate to call Nazism in particular a philosophy - in the same way that a scientist talking atheism isn’t doing science, the nationalist views of philosophers who influenced Hitler are not philosophy. And although many philosophers rushed to embrace Nazism and willingly purged their departments of Jews once the Nazis were in power, I think it’s going too far to say they invented Nazism.

Marx was not just a philosopher, he could also be claimed as an economist, sociologist, journalist or revolutionary socialist.

So what? Science’s success and philosophy’s recent failures imply that philosophy should be abandoned?

You’ll realize I’m using hyperbole in the manner of “Where is the philosopher of this age?” (1 Cor 1), but yes philosophy has been pushed off its perch, it is an ex-parrot.

 

[inocente]

I don’t think that was orginally about philosophy of science. I recall reading it in reference to why Nabakov or any other novelists should be teaching a literature class.

However, whatever it refers to, I think there have been thinkers who have pointed out that this little chesnut is probably not true - if birds could learn about ornithology, it would be quite beneficial to them, just as anthropology, psychology and medicine are to us.

Also, to answer your question, “Please can you name some philosophers in this branch who have provided rational foundations for science?” - Bertrand Russel, Rene Descartes, David Hume, etc.

Thanks for the list but unsurprisingly D) I disagree they provide the rational foundation:

1. Newton’s law of gravity predates Hume and Russell.
2. Newton rejected Descartes use of a priori definitions in favor of empirical evidence and induction (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Scholium). Hume also disagreed with Descartes.
3. Newton’s law of gravity doesn’t require reference to any foundation, it either gives correct predictions or it doesn’t, period.

I don’t know about the ornithology quote, but a jibe definitely made by Fenyman is this short youtube clip.

 

[Michael19682]

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.

First, I am confused about your claim to a “sad” or “ignorant” distinction which escapes so many posters. For clarification only: What is the distinction between “about the ontological objects of reality” and “obtaining knowledge about the ontological aspects of reality”? To me it looks trivial, redundant, and hair splitting insofar as being a bona fide distinction in any sense at all.

I’m primarily trained and educated in psychology, which in my opinion is a discipline asking all questions but with the resources to answer only those which have value for the person asking, the people thus benefitted, or for those whom might hopefully be helped in a future built upon such questions, their answers, etc.

To get immediately to the point: We believe that Jesus walked the earth and that the gospels are a true account of the events it tells. Obviously, no one alive then is alive any longer today. What he gave was a marker of how to recognize his followers. Their love is that marker. Just as it is a proven theory that the earth revolves around the sun, so is it not impossible that extrasolar forces alter that theory’s reality some day. I think some few may lack the insight or experience to recognize that bonds of love may be broken between two people but that love cannot be extinguished from reality. Everyone has a passion, a love, for something.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

**You’ll realize I’m using hyperbole in the manner of “Where is the philosopher of this age?” (1 Cor 1), but yes philosophy has been pushed off its perch, it is an ex-parrot. **

I agree with this. Wisdom has been pushed off its perch by the preening and squawking parrot called Science

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Wasn’t it God and the Philosophers who peeked over the summit of the Mount of Knowledge and saw those scientists equipped with only the ‘physical and temporal’ still toiling away only a little above base camp - and said to them, “What is taking you so long”?

 

[inocente]

Wasn’t it God and the Philosophers who peeked over the summit of the Mount of Knowledge and saw those scientists equipped with only the ‘physical and temporal’ still toiling away only a little above base camp - and said to them, “What is taking you so long”?

No that was Jason and the Argonauts just before they were killed in a horrible boating accident caused by not listening to the scientists’ advice on how to work the GPS.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Hello again, has anyone pointed out an alternative epistemology yet? Waiting on that.

 

[Semangelof]

Hello again, has anyone pointed out an alternative epistemology yet? Waiting on that.

You will have to read the thread to find out, but you got me curious. You list your religion as catholic. What scientific epistemological source did you use to come into your knowledge and hopefully your belief in God?