Is science the only way to gain knowledge?

[Avatar4321]

In other threads this issue seems to be coming up. I have always argued that there are more ways to know things than simply the scientific method. I've cited revelation, experience, faith, etc.

Yet a number of people seem to think unless it's scientifically proven you can't know something. My opinion, whatever it's worth, is that it makes no sense to limit what you can know to the scientific method when most of the important things in life arent knowable by science.

Can science prove if you love your spouse? Your family? Of course not.

Do you not love them because science can't prove it?

Can science prove someone guilty in a court of law? Sometimes, sometimes not. Are there other ways to do so? Of course.

Why should we limit what we can learn to what science can prove? Why what we know be determined by whether someone in a lab can prove it to someone else?

This is why science can never disprove faith. Because some knowledge exists outside the scope of the scientific method.

 

[Diuretic]

It's an interesting question. But first you have to work out what knowledge is. If we get that sorted then working out how to acquire it should be fairly straightforward, but one thing is clear, belief isn't knowledge.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Did you ever hear the phrase, "Because I'm the Mom, that's why." Enough said.

 

[JBeukema]

In other threads this issue seems to be coming up. I have always argued that there are more ways to know things than simply the scientific method. I've cited revelation, experience, faith, etc.

Yet a number of people seem to think unless it's scientifically proven you can't know something. My opinion, whatever it's worth, is that it makes no sense to limit what you can know to the scientific method when most of the important things in life arent knowable by science.

Can science prove if you love your spouse? Your family? Of course not.

Do you not love them because science can't prove it?

Can science prove someone guilty in a court of law? Sometimes, sometimes not. Are there other ways to do so? Of course.

Why should we limit what we can learn to what science can prove? Why what we know be determined by whether someone in a lab can prove it to someone else?

This is why science can never disprove faith. Because some knowledge exists outside the scope of the scientific method.

.

 

[KittenKoder]

In other threads this issue seems to be coming up. I have always argued that there are more ways to know things than simply the scientific method. I've cited revelation, experience, faith, etc.

Yet a number of people seem to think unless it's scientifically proven you can't know something. My opinion, whatever it's worth, is that it makes no sense to limit what you can know to the scientific method when most of the important things in life arent knowable by science.

Can science prove if you love your spouse? Your family? Of course not.

Do you not love them because science can't prove it?

Can science prove someone guilty in a court of law? Sometimes, sometimes not. Are there other ways to do so? Of course.

Why should we limit what we can learn to what science can prove? Why what we know be determined by whether someone in a lab can prove it to someone else?

This is why science can never disprove faith. Because some knowledge exists outside the scope of the scientific method.

Actually, there's a flaw in your thinking, it's not a bad one because our resident "wisdom is evil and only information is important" moron thinks the same way. Science isn't actually what we use, your very last statement is actually more accurate, science is a method, not a source or result. The only way to advance anything is through these steps:

1. Dream of something new.

2. Use science to better understand it.

3. Dream of a use for it.

Notice, dreaming is more important than the science. Knowledge is a byproduct of these three steps.

 

[JBeukema]

How can it be both the goal and and a byproduct? The little kitten needs to rethink her words.

 

[KittenKoder]

How can it be both the goal and and a byproduct? The little kitten needs to rethink her words.

There's another of your many flaws, if knowledge is your goal, then you are missing the point of life.

 

[JBeukema]

Now you claim to be able to state an all-encompassing 'purpose to life' applicable to all persons at all times?

Sorry to break to you, you stupid little feline, but there's no 'purpose' or reason to why life evolved or why we exist other than insomuch as the natural instinct to replicate is a purpose.

 

[KittenKoder]

Now you claim to be able to state an all-encompassing 'purpose to life' applicable to all persons at all times?

Sorry to break to you, you stupid little feline, but there's no 'purpose' or reason to why life evolved or why we exist other than insomuch as the natural instinct to replicate is a purpose.

Hmm ... you never mentioned "purpose" ... you said "goal" ... there is a difference, the fact that you think they are the same demonstrates your lack of knowledge as well as understanding. I thought you knew everything ... or are you admitting you know nothing finally?

However, attaining knowledge cannot be a purpose either as purpose isn't something you choose but requires a higher authority to grant it.

 

[JBeukema]

(A)ttaining knowledge cannot be a purpose either as purpose isn't something you choose but requires a higher authority to grant it.

If you really believe that nobody can learn anything without knowledge being bestowed, you have highlighted you own ignorance and foolishness, as well as arguing for your own lack of intelligence and insight.

 

[editec]

Certainly science is but one tool for understanding the world, and not a very good one for understanding many aspects of life.

What did Newton say after reinvesting into the South Sea TradCompany bubble which popped?

Something along the lines of:

"I can calculate the movement of the stars, but not the madness of men".​

The social sciences exists because understanding men and mankind is even more difficult than understanding the mechanics of the universe.

If you want to understand the plumbing of the universe, study science.

If you want to understand people and society, study history and literature.

 

[KittenKoder]

(A)ttaining knowledge cannot be a purpose either as purpose isn't something you choose but requires a higher authority to grant it.

If you really believe that nobody can learn anything without knowledge being bestowed, you have highlighted you own ignorance and foolishness, as well as arguing for your own lack of intelligence and insight.

Odd that you have to completely change the meaning of what was posted in order to make yourself look better ... to yourself.

In reality, and this is more friendly advice, it makes you look either a fool or dishonest. Could be both perhaps. Reread that and try again.

 

[JBeukema]

Purpose is not granted, and purpose does not exist beyond the extent to which one might adopt cause to bring a sense of fulfillment

The sole 'purpose' of life is to enjoy one's self

 

[KittenKoder]

Certainly science is but one tool for understanding the world, and not a very good one for understanding many aspects of life.

What did Newton say after reinvesting into the South Pacific Trading company bublble which popped leaving his broke

Something along the lines of:

"I can calculate the movement of the stars, but not the madness of men".

The social sciences exist because understanding man is even more difficult than understanding the mechanics of the universe

Social science ... one of my many talents and areas of study.

The more you understand of humanity, the more you realize that we really haven't evolved much beyond the ape mentality. Humans will still beat dead horses and pound their fists even when they are wrong ... and are very easily enraged beyond rational thought. Especially those without any spirituality or those with too much. You can easily spot the unbalanced humans, they can be enraged the easiest ... just like apes.

 

[JBeukema]

Some, like KK, were never capable of rational thought in the first place.

 

[KittenKoder]

Some, like KK, were never capable of rational thought in the first place.

Projection is another of your many failures ... seriously dude, you can't flame worth shit, so stop trying, you are only embarrassing yourself.

 

[JBeukema]

Making observations is not flaming; it is making observations.

 

[Avatar4321]

Actually, there's a flaw in your thinking, it's not a bad one because our resident "wisdom is evil and only information is important" moron thinks the same way. Science isn't actually what we use, your very last statement is actually more accurate, science is a method, not a source or result. The only way to advance anything is through these steps:

1. Dream of something new.

2. Use science to better understand it.

3. Dream of a use for it.

Notice, dreaming is more important than the science. Knowledge is a byproduct of these three steps.

Actually, that is exactly my point. Science is a method. One of several methods to gain knowledge. To pretend that science is the only way to can know anything is perposterous because we know many things without using the scientific method.

 

[Avatar4321]

Now you claim to be able to state an all-encompassing 'purpose to life' applicable to all persons at all times?

Sorry to break to you, you stupid little feline, but there's no 'purpose' or reason to why life evolved or why we exist other than insomuch as the natural instinct to replicate is a purpose.

How do you know there is no purpose or reason? I know science didnt show you that.

 

[Avatar4321]

Some, like KK, were never capable of rational thought in the first place.

You know, most people wouldnt conclude that when everyone is disagreeing with you the rest of the world must be incapable of rational though. Most honest people would question if maybe they were the irrational ones.

Does that ever occur to you?