Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Science over other methods?

Zogen
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 3:41:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I myself accept science as the best and truest way of looking at the world, but that doesn't mean I can justify the idea. Is there a good argument that prefers science over other approaches such as phenomenology?
Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand (Karl Marx).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 6:44:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 3:41:17 PM, Zogen wrote:
I myself accept science as the best and truest way of looking at the world, but that doesn't mean I can justify the idea. Is there a good argument that prefers science over other approaches such as phenomenology?

Philosophy. Science can only talk about so much without delving into metaphysics and leaving their area of expertise. However, take a philosopher of science. Not only is he/ she educated on science, but philosophy as well. So, this person can, at least on a level of expertise, be able to "say more" that he couldn't say, on an expert level, if he was only a scientist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 6:45:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, I my argument is that because philosophy can include science with no problem, but science cannot include much philosophy without going beyond their limits; philosophy seems to have a more broad range.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 6:14:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 3:41:17 PM, Zogen wrote:
I myself accept science as the best and truest way of looking at the world, but that doesn't mean I can justify the idea. Is there a good argument that prefers science over other approaches such as phenomenology?

The mistake you are making here is to think that you must choose, or that only one mode of human knowledge can render truth.

The experiential reality of a human being includes qualities, values, purposes, and meaning, it is one that has personal and impersonal, transcendent and immanent aspects. These can be taken as different aspects of one rich reality that must be viewed dynamically and relationally rather than in the purely static terms of a single mode of knowledge. The very division of knowledge into the distinct disciplines of science, philosophy, religion, and art implies that they are all incomplete and if we allow them to contradict each other, they are all equally false.

Science is selective; it does not, and cannot claim that its picture of reality is complete. The consensus of scientists and philosophers of science alike is that as a probe toward the way things really are, science is a powerful but strictly limited instrument. Science cannot deal with the qualitatively unmeasurable and therefore works with a "disqualified universe" when it comes to values, purposes, and meaning, and true science does not purport to address those issues for man. In the end, a strictly scientific worldview is in principle impossible.

And science itself does not contend that reality can be reduced to a single ontological level, on the contrary, science asserts that reality is in fact, multileveled, it asserts that the four dimensions of existence that we call reality, are contingent and relative to a greater reality of more dimensions, a transcendent reality of which we cannot have precise or complete knowledge. It"s fashionable to associate science with the rational, more intelligent view, but the fact remains that true intelligence involves the ability to view and understanding widely different things from multiple different perspectives, an aptitude for grasping a wide range of truths, relationships, and meanings, and the capacity for abstract and symbolic thought. From this it follows logically that the contention that one can reduce reality to only one of its modes, to know it completely in only one of its forms, is an unintelligent claim.

In the end, a coherent vision of reality must allow for the distinctiveness of different types of human experience, if it doesn"t, it imparts an incomplete and incoherent vision and results in a fragmented human psyche. For a healthy outlook, we must come to terms with the rich diversity of our experience and develop a coherent and comprehensive worldview that fully embraces what it means to be a human being.

Taken in its entirety, and taking man in his entirety, reality is not the way science says it is; it is the way science, philosophy, religion, and art say it is.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
whatledge
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 2:15:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 3:41:17 PM, Zogen wrote:
I myself accept science as the best and truest way of looking at the world, but that doesn't mean I can justify the idea. Is there a good argument that prefers science over other approaches such as phenomenology?

I think you answered your own question when you posted this on the philosophy section instead of the science section. Science focuses primarily on "how" something works, while philosophy also focuses on "why" something matters. That's why science cannot be used to answer ethical/moral problems, or answer questions regarding what it means to be human beyond biological definitions. Poetry and literature (which are artistic/philosophical expressions) have no such limits as science, which is why they remain relevant in exploring abstracts and the human experience.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 7:23:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 3:41:17 PM, Zogen wrote:
I myself accept science as the best and truest way of looking at the world, but that doesn't mean I can justify the idea. Is there a good argument that prefers science over other approaches such as phenomenology?

I think it's a mistake to pit science against other methods of knowing. We know different things in different ways. Science is the best method for discovering certain kinds of truths, but there are other truths that require different methods. Each method is suited for certain kinds of knowledge.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 1:24:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 6:45:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So, I my argument is that because philosophy can include science with no problem, but science cannot include much philosophy without going beyond their limits; philosophy seems to have a more broad range.

Yay
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 3:23:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 3:41:17 PM, Zogen wrote:
I myself accept science as the best and truest way of looking at the world, but that doesn't mean I can justify the idea. Is there a good argument that prefers science over other approaches such as phenomenology?

Great question!

I believe that science is neither the best nor the truest way of determining reality.
Here is my list of the inherent flaws of counting on science alone:

1) Reality changes.
Here is a simple path of just one of the ways that reality changes:

A. We define everything we percieve.
B. We live by our definitions.
C. We create new Ways to percieve.

2) Logic alone dulls the scientists ability to believe.
When you can take two tooth picks and separate them on a table, you do not have to BELIEVE that one plus one equals two. You can see the proof of it with your eyes.
Yet we know how often it is true that when we decide that something ought to be true, we soon find we were right.

How many things might we find are true if we imagined, and believed first, then applied our logic to that belief.
I don't mean we should do that all the time. But magic would happen if we did it some of the time.
(I say this because not only do I love science, but I also believe it is a great tool. But like any tool, it is not enough by itself. You could cut a 2 x 4 with a claw hammer, but the result is going to be messy.)

3) in either major scientific discipline we either, can not see the forest for the trees, or can not see the trees for the forest.

We have a tendency to either look at the big picture and think we see everything, or look at the small pictures and think we see everything.

So, in conclusion, I say that the best way of understanding reality is by taking into account all of the ways of looking at reality that we humans have at our disposal.
In other words, we should be using all of the tools in the shed instead of just the one.

These three are IMHO the major tools in the shed. The ones that should be kept in every tool belt:

Philosophy: because it can help us see the trees and the forest at the same time.
Religion: because it can teach us how to believe.
And of course, science: because it is best at showing the fine details.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.