Is Science the Best Method to Understand the World?

[WalterTrull]

The best way is probably "thinking".

 

[Valjean]

So if I'm understanding correctly, you agree that science is the best method we have for understanding the world. But also that we can't learn things about God via science. That's odd, right?

Not odd. Science can't work with the supernatural. It can only work with observable, testable phenomena.

if it doesn't cost anything you can use that method and discover things even about God, I guess.
(Still under the premise that God does not favor the rich)

No!
Until there is observable, testable evidence for God, he is not within the purview of science.

 

[Left Coast]

I don't know. If it interacts with ordinary matter, we could detect the changes in that ordinary matter and regard them as a way to detect whatever is 'outside of space and time'. That is how we detect things like neutrinos, after all.

The thing is, how would ever determine that phenomena was caused by something outside space and time? Even if that were true, we'd have no way that I'm aware of to make that call. It's the same issue with consciousness. When it is pointed out that changes in the brain affect changes in consciousness, some will say that's because the brain is like a satellite dish, the mediator between immaterial mind and physcial body. But how could we ever test that? The results would be indistinguishable from the scenario where the brain causes consciousness.

I know zilch about neutrinos though, so feel free to educate me if I'm missing something here.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I would say that introspection gives an *illusion* of self-knowledge, but applying the scientific method on oneself gives actual knowledge.

The point is that introspection can easily be wrong and, in fact, often is.

So I am disappointed that my response wasn't a gotcha as I thought . I have to introspect myself on that.

I have to think of this further before I can get back to you. You make a good point to think about, but I am not sure if it is true.

 

[exchemist]

The Humanist Manifesto says, in part:


Agree or disagree?

If you disagree, why? What non-scientific method provides us with more accurate knowledge of the world?

Depends what you mean by "the world" and what you mean by "accurate". Science is unrivalled at giving us a predictive understanding of the physical world, in some cases quantitatively.

But personally, the "world" I experience is a lot more than physical phenomena, coolly observed with scientific detachment. I experience emotions, relationships, art and other things that science is no help at all in describing, understanding or dealing with.

The "world" of experience for most people does not require them to understand much science: we have people (like me) to do that for us. So I oppose putting science up on some kind of pedestal, to be be worshipped by those who don't understand it and don't really need to.

 

[exchemist]

Do you believe the Earth orbits the Sun?

No. Both orbit their common centre of mass.

Also, you can if you like place your frame of reference on the Earth, and construct a system that predicts the motions of the heavenly bodies quite well, as the Ptolemaic system did for centuries. But you do get a simpler model if you choose the sun as the origin of your coordinate system.

 

[Polymath257]

The thing is, how would ever determine that phenomena was caused by something outside space and time? Even if that were true, we'd have no way that I'm aware of to make that call. It's the same issue with consciousness. When it is pointed out that changes in the brain affect changes in consciousness, some will say that's because the brain is like a satellite dish, the mediator between immaterial mind and physcial body. But how could we ever test that? The results would be indistinguishable from the scenario where the brain causes consciousness.

I know zilch about neutrinos though, so feel free to educate me if I'm missing something here.

And that is *precisely* why the scientific method does not consider any hypothesis that cannot give a measurable difference. Either there is an effect and it is measurable and hence you get a detection, or there is not an effect and the question becomes what do you mean to say the thing even exists?

In other words, anything that is *inherently* untestable is disregarded and seen as meaningless.

But, if it is inherently untestable, no knowledge can be had. So the scientific method is still the only way to get knowledge.

 

[Augustus]

Agree or disagree?

Disagree with it stated as dogmatically as that.

It's certainly one of the best though.

What non-scientific method provides us with more accurate knowledge of the world?

It depends what domain you are talking about.

Experience is better than formal science in many practical domains, especially those with high uncertainty. A rough heuristic may prove to be more useful than an attempt at precise 'scientific' understanding in situations where evidence may not emerge until it is too late.

(look at the COVID outbreak and see how bad the 'scientific' advice was during the early stages: don't wear masks, don't limit travel, don't be silly, the is no evidence we need to worry about this new virus)

Also:

Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies.

The best way to solve problems and create new technologies is trial and error tinkering, at least in terms of volume of techs created and problems solved.

 

[nPeace]

Hey nPeace. How do we gain accurate knowledge of the spirit world? What method would we use, if it isn't science?

(Matthew 11:25-27) 25 At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. 26 Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one fully knows the Son except the Father; neither does anyone fully know the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son is willing to reveal him.
@Left Coast Sorry I overlooked the second question. I'm distracted as I am engaged otherwise. I'll answer the second question as soon as I can.

@Left Coast to your second question.
(Psalm 10:4) In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation; All his thoughts are: “There is no God.”
Investigation leads to evidence based faith.

 

[Heyo]

So I am disappointed that my response wasn't a gotcha as I thought . I have to introspect myself on that.

I have to think of this further before I can get back to you. You make a good point to think about, but I am not sure if it is true.

Don't bother. What @Polymath257 didn't mention is that introspection doesn't answer the question. With introspection you may detect things about yourself but the question was what the best method is to detect things about the world.

 

[Valjean]

(Matthew 11:25-27) 25 At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. 26 Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one fully knows the Son except the Father; neither does anyone fully know the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son is willing to reveal him.

Why are you quoting a book of folklore? Aren't we discussing science and reality here?

 

[Polymath257]

The thing is, how would ever determine that phenomena was caused by something outside space and time? Even if that were true, we'd have no way that I'm aware of to make that call. It's the same issue with consciousness. When it is pointed out that changes in the brain affect changes in consciousness, some will say that's because the brain is like a satellite dish, the mediator between immaterial mind and physcial body. But how could we ever test that? The results would be indistinguishable from the scenario where the brain causes consciousness.

I know zilch about neutrinos though, so feel free to educate me if I'm missing something here.

Another point on this:

Under the assumption that the brain is like a satellite dish what could we predict?

So, for example, we should see antenna-type structures. We should see interference effects from people close by that are on similar 'frequencies'. We should detect energy loss or gain when the signals come in or leave. We should be able to produce similar structures to pick up on the signals.

Given that *none* of those predictions is supported by observation, this puts the hypothesis in serious question.

So, make a prediction based on this hypothesis that gives a measurable effect that is different than some competing hypothesis. If that cannot be done, then the hypothesis isn't even one that needs to be considered. It becomes equivalent to arguing about brains in a vat or the Matrix.

 

[Nakosis]

The Humanist Manifesto says, in part:


Agree or disagree?

If you disagree, why? What non-scientific method provides us with more accurate knowledge of the world?

If we let science rule, human beings will likely become obsolete.

 

[Heyo]

Why does that mean it/he/she would be undetectable?

And if undetectable, even in theory, in what sense does it even exist?

It doesn't. You can use the scientific methods of linguistics / text analysis / logic to come to that conclusion.
Something that is outside of space is not inside of space is therefore nowhere.
Something that is outside of time is not in time is therefore never
Something that is never and nowhere doesn't exist.

 

[MikeF]

Disagree with it stated as dogmatically as that.

It's certainly one of the best though.



It depends what domain you are talking about.

Experience is better than formal science in many practical domains, especially those with high uncertainty. A rough heuristic may prove to be more useful than an attempt at precise 'scientific' understanding in situations where evidence may not emerge until it is too late.

(look at the COVID outbreak and see how bad the 'scientific' advice was during the early stages: don't wear masks, don't limit travel, don't be silly, the is no evidence we need to worry about this new virus)

Also:

Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies.

The best way to solve problems and create new technologies is trial and error tinkering, at least in terms of volume of techs created and problems solved.

Since when was trial and error tinkering not part of the scientific method?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

With introspection you may detect things about yourself but the question was what the best method is to detect things about the world.

I would think that introspection is filtered through one's understanding of the world.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It doesn't. You can use the scientific methods of linguistics / text analysis / logic to come to that conclusion.
Something that is outside of space is not inside of space is therefore nowhere.
Something that is outside of time is not in time is therefore never
Something that is never and nowhere doesn't exist.

Wow. Sophomoric Cosmogony 101.

 

[Heyo]

Nay, start by determining the proposed properties well enough so that you know if you do detect it and know if you do not.

Nay, start at step one of the scientific method, detect phenomena and seek pattern.
Or, as in this case, where we are confronted with a hypothesis, we ask the one proposing the hypothesis what phenomena and patterns let her to the hypothesis.

 

[George-ananda]

Agree or disagree?

If you disagree, why? What non-scientific method provides us with more accurate knowledge of the world?

I got to vote 'Disagree'

Science is the best method for understanding the physical world at this time.

However from my study of the paranormal and psychic I believe science is also an incomplete understanding of all reality.

Spirituality is even more important to human happiness than science.

 

[nPeace]

Another point on this:

Under the assumption that the brain is like a satellite dish what could we predict?

So, for example, we should see antenna-type structures. We should see interference effects from people close by that are on similar 'frequencies'. We should detect energy loss or gain when the signals come in or leave. We should be able to produce similar structures to pick up on the signals.

Given that *none* of those predictions is supported by observation, this puts the hypothesis in serious question.

So, make a prediction based on this hypothesis that gives a measurable effect that is different than some competing hypothesis. If that cannot be done, then the hypothesis isn't even one that needs to be considered. It becomes equivalent to arguing about brains in a vat or the Matrix.

Don't you mean we should have a lot of hubris, considering we are not even able to understand the most complex organ on earth - the one we use for science, and yet expect to detect something we know absolutely nothing about.
We can't even figure out the 95% dark universe. Hubris yes.