(note: this is somewhat of a spin-off from another thread)
Some people here at Battleforums seem to be under the impression that science IS knowledge. I, however, would argue that the belief that science is the most reliable source of knowledge somewhat stems from a misunderstanding of what knowledge and science are. Contrary to popular belief, science is 'not' the only source of knowledge we humans have out our disposal. Whatever happened to our emotions, our senses, and perhaps even our intuitive abilities? I would argue that although science IS a source of knowledge, it is no more reliable than any other source of knowledge....afterall, all sources of knowledge are inherently flawed.
To start off with, my argument will revolve around the definition of knowledge as "a true, justified belief", and science as "the investigation and explanation of phenomena". Note that nowhere in my definition of knowledge do I mention science.
Science is considered a source of knowledge because it is often used to justify our beliefs. In a certain thread here at the Arcane Sanctuary, someone got flamed pretty badly for bravely asserting that 95% of all science is bs. I'm afraid I have to agree. I laughed out loud in class while reading about aristotle's theories; aristotle (arguably the greatest scientist of his time), argued that when an object is thrown a force known as its "violent motion" acts on it, and when it runs out, "natural motion" takes over, which is why objects fall down. Half of the theories formulated by scientists say...a century ago have already been dissproved by our "modern" science. In fact, science is BASED on the continual revision, restriction, and replacement of theories. I can say with almost absolute certainty that, in a few hundred years time, half of our current scientific theories will be subject to one of the precedingly mentioned three 'Rs' of science. Though we would like to think that science is absolute, it is not. Contrary to popular belief, 'science' is NOT synonymous with 'fact' (imagine my disymay at reading the words "because it's fact. It's science", from a poster I respect no less...). Science merely offers us a handy explanation for what we'd otherwise be unable to explain...as does religion...which is why I really can't see people here at Battleforums are quick to bash anyone who would use religion as a means of justifying beliefs. Which brings me to another point, since science is NOT necessarily always right, why does it seem as though half the posters here think science takes precedence over religion? Can't science and religion co-exist? For all we know, there 'could' be a god, and He might have started the big bang.
I've also noticed that half the people here at the Arcane Sanctuary tend to reduce things to science. I won't discount the fact that everything sort of CAN be reduced to physics (example=love is essentially a product of chemicals coursing through our veins, and chemicals are essentially a certain combination of elements, which are essentially a certain combination of quarks, leptons, baryons, hadrons, whatever). However, to reduce everything to science is to ignore the fact that emotions and intuition play an important role in our quest for 'knowledge'. I'm sure most of you have fallen in love, so I'll ask you this: how did you 'know' you were in love? Suffice to say that I can safely assume that science played an insignificant role, and that emotions were the preponderant source of knowledge here. Emotions 'are' a source of knowledge, that, I believe, much of you have yet to accept. As another example, consider the realm of ethics. How do you 'know' if something is deontologically right or wrong? Do you pull out a calculator? A physics book perhaps? Or do you just 'know'?
In addition, sources of knowledge often conflict. Thats a given. (as an example, consider this: you're watching a magic show. perception, as a source of knowledge, tells you the magician disappeared. logic, as another source of knowledge, tells you its not possible)..For some strange reason, science always seems to take precedence over any other source of knowledge here at the Arcane Sanctuary. I believe that, in the interest of knowledge, people should be more open to the possibility that science may NOT be as reliable as they think.
...so how DOES one choose between conflicting sources of knowledge? Do you leave it to a coin toss? I believe that there is no single method through one decides between different sources of knowledge. Though one might be inclined towards choosing the most 'trustworthy' source of knowledge, that might not be the best choice (do i choose logic if I want to suspend my disbelief and ENJOY the magic show? or do I choose perception and let myself be fooled?). I urge each and every one of you forumers to ponder these questions. As Enrico Fermi once said, "Ignorance is not better than knowledge". Ignorance, gets us nowhere.
Some people here at Battleforums seem to be under the impression that science IS knowledge. I, however, would argue that the belief that science is the most reliable source of knowledge somewhat stems from a misunderstanding of what knowledge and science are. Contrary to popular belief, science is 'not' the only source of knowledge we humans have out our disposal. Whatever happened to our emotions, our senses, and perhaps even our intuitive abilities? I would argue that although science IS a source of knowledge, it is no more reliable than any other source of knowledge....afterall, all sources of knowledge are inherently flawed.
To start off with, my argument will revolve around the definition of knowledge as "a true, justified belief", and science as "the investigation and explanation of phenomena". Note that nowhere in my definition of knowledge do I mention science.
Science is considered a source of knowledge because it is often used to justify our beliefs. In a certain thread here at the Arcane Sanctuary, someone got flamed pretty badly for bravely asserting that 95% of all science is bs. I'm afraid I have to agree. I laughed out loud in class while reading about aristotle's theories; aristotle (arguably the greatest scientist of his time), argued that when an object is thrown a force known as its "violent motion" acts on it, and when it runs out, "natural motion" takes over, which is why objects fall down. Half of the theories formulated by scientists say...a century ago have already been dissproved by our "modern" science. In fact, science is BASED on the continual revision, restriction, and replacement of theories. I can say with almost absolute certainty that, in a few hundred years time, half of our current scientific theories will be subject to one of the precedingly mentioned three 'Rs' of science. Though we would like to think that science is absolute, it is not. Contrary to popular belief, 'science' is NOT synonymous with 'fact' (imagine my disymay at reading the words "because it's fact. It's science", from a poster I respect no less...). Science merely offers us a handy explanation for what we'd otherwise be unable to explain...as does religion...which is why I really can't see people here at Battleforums are quick to bash anyone who would use religion as a means of justifying beliefs. Which brings me to another point, since science is NOT necessarily always right, why does it seem as though half the posters here think science takes precedence over religion? Can't science and religion co-exist? For all we know, there 'could' be a god, and He might have started the big bang.
I've also noticed that half the people here at the Arcane Sanctuary tend to reduce things to science. I won't discount the fact that everything sort of CAN be reduced to physics (example=love is essentially a product of chemicals coursing through our veins, and chemicals are essentially a certain combination of elements, which are essentially a certain combination of quarks, leptons, baryons, hadrons, whatever). However, to reduce everything to science is to ignore the fact that emotions and intuition play an important role in our quest for 'knowledge'. I'm sure most of you have fallen in love, so I'll ask you this: how did you 'know' you were in love? Suffice to say that I can safely assume that science played an insignificant role, and that emotions were the preponderant source of knowledge here. Emotions 'are' a source of knowledge, that, I believe, much of you have yet to accept. As another example, consider the realm of ethics. How do you 'know' if something is deontologically right or wrong? Do you pull out a calculator? A physics book perhaps? Or do you just 'know'?
In addition, sources of knowledge often conflict. Thats a given. (as an example, consider this: you're watching a magic show. perception, as a source of knowledge, tells you the magician disappeared. logic, as another source of knowledge, tells you its not possible)..For some strange reason, science always seems to take precedence over any other source of knowledge here at the Arcane Sanctuary. I believe that, in the interest of knowledge, people should be more open to the possibility that science may NOT be as reliable as they think.
...so how DOES one choose between conflicting sources of knowledge? Do you leave it to a coin toss? I believe that there is no single method through one decides between different sources of knowledge. Though one might be inclined towards choosing the most 'trustworthy' source of knowledge, that might not be the best choice (do i choose logic if I want to suspend my disbelief and ENJOY the magic show? or do I choose perception and let myself be fooled?). I urge each and every one of you forumers to ponder these questions. As Enrico Fermi once said, "Ignorance is not better than knowledge". Ignorance, gets us nowhere.
