Is Science the Best Method to Understand the World?

[Left Coast]

The Humanist Manifesto says, in part:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies.

Agree or disagree?

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

 

[Samael_Khan]

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?

I agree

 

[epronovost]

I agree that science is pretty much the only method available that can solve problems and develop new technologies. I also agree that experimentation, observation and rationnal analysis is the most efficient method to understand the world and acquire knowledge.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

Strongly agree.

I don't know of a non-scientific method that provides knowledge at all.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Strongly agree.

I don't know of a non-scientific method that provides knowledge at all.

HA! Gonna try a "gotcha" :

Does introspection not provide you with knowledge of yourself? People do not use the scientific method to evaluate that. The same goes for our knowledge of others through interpersonal relationships.

 

[Revoltingest]

Strongly agree.

I don't know of a non-scientific method that provides knowledge at all.

Before the scientific method, people managed to
survive & develop culture. So whatever that method
was, I find it best. Incorporating science is better still.

BTW, religion adds nothing of net value.

 

[Left Coast]

Do you believe the Earth orbits the Sun?

nah

Bye now! Run along.

 

[thomas t]

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?

It's a good method. However, the scientific method often is expensive. You either need a high education to understand what other scientists do or expensive gear to investigate the data or both.
If there is a God who does not discriminate against the poor... he would reveal himself/ or his actions in a way that does not cost money to observe.
A God who shares out spritual knowledge equally - to the rich and the poor alike - would not opt to let himself be dicovered through a way that only a small minority of priviledged peole in the global West could undertake.

 

[Polymath257]

HA! Gonna try a "gotcha" :

Does introspection not provide you with knowledge of yourself? People do not use the scientific method to evaluate that. The same goes for our knowledge of others through interpersonal relationships.

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.

 

[HonestJoe]

Agree or disagree?

I agree science is the best method. The main problem is that humans aren't the best at applying it.

 

[Left Coast]

It's a good method. However, the scientific method often is expensive. You either need a high education to understand what other scientists do or expensive gear to investigate the data or both.
If there is a God who does not discriminate against the poor... he would reveal himself/ or his actions in a way that does not cost money to observe.
A God who shares out spritual knowledge equally - to the rich and the poor alike - would not opt to let himself be dicovered through a way that only a small minority of priviledged peole in the global West could undertake.

Do you know of a method that gives us more accurate information about the world than science? Perhaps a method your god has shared?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Asked and answered.

As the saying goes: Don't feed it!

 

[thomas t]

Do you know of a method that gives us more accurate information about the world than science? Perhaps a method your god has shared?

no, since even the Bible says we should test for everything. 1 Thessalonians 5:21.
But the moment it gets expensive it is no longer a good method when you want to know things about God, provided he does not want to give any advantage to the rich and educated.

 

[Eddi]

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?

I agree

 

[Left Coast]

no, since even the Bible says we should test for everything. 1 Thessalonians 5:21.
But the moment it gets expensive it is no longer a good method when you want to know things about God, provided he does not want to give any advantage to the rich and educated.

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?

 

[thomas t]

BTW, religion adds nothing of net value.

of net value to get knowledge?
here I disagree. They often meet with peers and they exchange information gladly. Maybe it's not natural sciences they are talking about, but they learn a lot to understand each other better.

 

[Polymath257]

Scientific method (simplified version):

1. Make observations, looking for patterns.

2. From observed patterns, make hypotheses about what is going on.

3. Use the hypotheses to make predictions about further observations.

4. Make those observations to see if the predictions were accurate.

5. If the predictions are NOT accurate, go to 1 or 2. This may involve discarding or modifying the hypothesis. If the predictions ARE accurate, go to 3.

It is often the case that several different hypotheses can be tested at the same time. In this case, the observations should be set up in such a way that the hypotheses give different predictions. That way, at least one hypothesis can be eliminated.

Because observation is crucial for the method, only hypotheses are considered that could be shown wrong by observation if, in fact, they are wrong.

 

[thomas t]

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?

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)

 

[nPeace]

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 on which world you mean.
(John 8:23, 24) 23 [Jesus] went on to say to them: “You are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. You are from this world; I am not from this world. 24 That is why I said to you: You will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am the one, you will die in your sins.”
This world, to a greater measure, yes. Otherwise, No.
The spirit world and the things associated with it are beyond science, and its instruments.

What non-scientific method provides us with more accurate knowledge of the spirit world?
(Ephesians 4:13, 14) 13 until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ. 14 So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.

The advantage of this accurate knowledge, is that it accomplishes what science can never do, and will never do, not in this life time, or the one to come.
(Colossians 3:5-10) 5 Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry. 6 On account of those things the wrath of God is coming. 7 That is how you too used to conduct yourselves in your former way of life. 8 But now you must put them all away from you: wrath, anger, badness, abusive speech, and obscene talk out of your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another. Strip off the old personality with its practices, 10 and clothe yourselves with the new personality, which through accurate knowledge is being made new according to the image of the One who created it,

 

[MikeF]

The Humanist Manifesto says, in part:
Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies.

Agree or disagree?

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

I agree that this is how we are to determine reality, that which is real and existent. It can be applied to any belief that can be either right or wrong. But I often hear the argument that science cannot help us understand morals and ethics, aesthetics such as music, art, and the concepts of beauty.
These are categories of belief that do not have a right or wrong answer, but rather, are relative to the individual or group that hold this type of belief.
Morals and ethics, and the associated laws, rules, ordinances, and social morays that result from them, are simply constructs that we create to allow us to live together in groups larger than a few people. These rules can be developed and agreed to collaboratively by the group, or imposed by a minority that hold power in the group. Criteria for the social construct must be established before scientific methods can be use to determine if the rules and laws developed are efficient and support the established criteria.