Empiricism, in philosophy, the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience. This broad definition accords with the derivation of the term empiricism from the ancient Greek word empeiria, “experience.”
"Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. It questions what knowledge is, how it is acquired, and the possible extent to which a given subject or entity can be know."
Sounds impressive, but it is meaningless, just like Metaphysics, mere word games, or a play on words.
Metaphysics came first, starting with Aristotle’s works.
The term Epistemology was introduced by a Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier (1806 – 1864). The field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge. One cannot talk about epistemology without mentioning Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804).
“Kant devised a model, an individual epistemology, by examining the basis of human knowledge and its limits. He brought together the ideas of rationalism, influential thinkers such as Leibniz and Wolff, with empiricism as proposed by David Hume. Kant's critical philosophy is presented in the Critique of Pure Reason (1781); the idea of critique is to establish and investigate the legitimate limits of human knowledge. Knowledge of sensible objects must form itself in advance to the structures of the human mind's ability to reason, and therefore all objects conform themselves a priori in such a relation -legitimate knowledge of objects is limited to how they appear for us.”
What did David Hume say about Kant's works in metaphysics:
“If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”
Sophistry is a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning. 2. a false argument; sophism.
All the arguments in Metaphysics and Epistemology are word games or a play on words and mean nothing. Scientific data is the only reality. Observable, verifiable evidence is the only reality.
This article, "An Epistemological Nightmare" is one of the funniest I have seen that for me proves how epistemological is nothing more than a play of words, a word game, based on circular reasoning.
Reformed epistemology seeks to defend faith as rational...as proof or evidence that God exists. But, the problem is that they have no verifiable facts or evidence, which is why Science is the only source of true knowledge.
Notice to the right that none of these other forms of true knowledge were listed by name. At the end of the day, you can be extremely confident about something, but you can't confirm it unless there's data behind it confirming it is an accurate assessment. Fun fact: "science" doesn't mandate a geeky guy, test tubes and a laboratory, the term covers far more.
Science is one of the most powerful things in the world, I would go so far as to say. It allows us to understand so much about the world in which we live it. I agree that it is the only source for true knowledge in this world that we live in.
The study of anything could be considered a science, I mean theology is considered a science (study of religion). So even if something can't immediately be explained by science, all you have to do is study it and science suddenly has a grasp on it. Dictionary.com has several definitions that outline this point nicely. Especially the first point.
Definition of SCIENCE
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>
b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
Yes.. Its objective
We have found that where science has progressed the farthest, the mind has but regained from nature that which the mind put into nature.
he stated that because students learned more to be a part of their everyday lives leading to realistic activity which they encounter eveyday.
This really show the ignorance of some people! How can we be epistemologically certain that ONE form of collecting data gives us the answers to every possible question. This is absurd. This mentality would lead us into fallacious and harmful reasoning, we can conclude many things from PURE Science. Truly other forms of knowledge not only exist but are important.
No, I do not think that science is the only source of true knowledge. I think that it is probably the best source of true knowledge, but not the only source. For instance, I think that history is a source of true knowledge, and that is not scientific. There are plenty of other sources of knowledge.
Science is one of the many sources of knowledge but it is not the only true source of knowledge. Math and English both help people in their everyday lives and more often than science does, I would say that those two are more helpful and more important than science is right now.
Science is a subset of mathematics, and maths does not depend on scientific experiments. Therefore, since 1+1=2 is true, and since Boolean logic exists apart from science, there are obviously other methods of arriving at truth.
That is not to say that science isn't obviously a source of truth. I drop a ball, measure it falling, and can deduce that it fell.
But you cannot scientifically prove logic, and yet I would argue that is our biggest source of truth.
Solve 276X=477+8899 without math Lol. But in all honesty science doesn't teach us all that much. Yes we learn about how the earth spins and why we have night and day, but I believe history teaches us more life skills. The speakers name escapes me now but I believe the quote is " they who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it." I believe that is true and is enough for a no vote on this question.
Science is the only true source when we're talking about proving things to other people. But to prove something to yourself there are other sources of knowledge. You shouldn't expect others to get on board if you can't prove it though. But sometimes things can be known from direct, internal, personal experience that others can't notice and it can sometimes be very difficult to communicate or demonstrate. Doesn't make it any less real.
There is at least one more way by which we can know, which is mathematics. Think of an example: x^n + y^n = z^n has no non-trivial rational solutions for n>2. We know for certain this is true. There is no possible way this can be false (if, of course, all the terms used mean what they mean). It is an objective truth.
Now, what experiment was used for us to know this? What evidence do we have? What data did we gather? The answer to each of these questions is "None". It is a mathematical proof. Wiles did not retire to a lab to know this. The scientific method was not used. And there is no room for error. No one will come forward and say that this statement is false. Making our knowledge of the theorem much more concrete. Even if there is some room, it is definitely much, much less than that we have for any scientific theory.
That goes for all mathematical theorems. Many of which science (physics, especially) relies heavily upon.
There you go, we have at least one other source.
Definition is important here. I've always known science as "the process of proving claims through collecting evidence that can be perceived through the external senses." It therefore does not and cannot deal with the exploration of subjective experience. It certainly plays an enormous role in regulating subjective experience, given the interconnected nature of inward perception and outward experience. However, given that there is a distinction between the subjective and the objective, there are therefore things that the business of objective verification cannot prove, and therefore cannot be known by it.
If, however, science is defined broadly as the process of testing claims, then that would change my answer. One cannot know without experiment; therefore, my answer would be yes. However, by this very broad definition, praying with the question of "God, are you there?" would be considered a scientific venture. Most of us would not define the act of praying for an answer as to whether God exists as science.
Math and science are full of assumptions. Nature and engineering cannot make any assumptions. Therefore, no engineering experiment can prove any math or science theory, because it will automatically eliminate all assumptions. Therefore science has never been tested by any engineering experiments. Look at the free book on Soul Theory at https://theoryofsouls.wordpress.com/
The claim that 'science is the only source of true knowledge' is a claim about science rather than a claim of science. So, if this statement were true then it is unknowable. Yet, don't its supporters claim to know that this statement is true? Don't we also know many NONscientific (rather than UNscientific) truths? I have two hands, I exist, there are other minds apart from my own, a man raping a woman just for fun is morally wrong, 7+9=16, (Pv~P), Sherlock Holmes is a detective...