Science And Knowledge

There is subjective knowledge, the knowledge we have within ourselves through our senses. Then, there is objective, empirical knowledge observable by others and is, therefore, able to be verified by others. The latter is science in the broadest terms. Many findings of science are counter-intuitive, and difficult to accept because the human brain has flaws, such as confirmation bias, hyperactive agency detection, false memories, the placebo effect, religious experiences, and the misinterpreting of medical spontaneous remissions. One of the hardest finding to accept by the religious is that all religion/belief in God is probably a by-product of our evolution, environment, and the development of our brain. Why do I say this: science has either falsified all claims for a God that are falsifiable, or the claims are not falsifiable (link).

Following are some links that educate on the topic:

 “We don’t need a scientifically based or a strong philosophical underpinning to validate science.  All we need to know is that the method works: that it produces results that all scientists could in principle replicate (if they can’t the results are discarded), and it produces—apologies to Jane Austen—truths universally acknowledged.  It also produces progress.  It cures diseases, flies us to the moon, improves our crops.  No other “way of knowing” does that—certainly not religion, Brown’s favorite hobbyhorse. And yes, the practice of science rests implicitly on the value that it’s good to find out what is true and real, but does Brown disagree with that?  In the end, the method is validated by its results and needs no a priori justification.  After all, the methods of science weren’t devised before science was practiced—we simply learned from experience that if we wanted to find truth, we had to go about it in a certain way.” (link)

“A little reflection shows that there are several other ways of knowledge besides the one provided by science. None of these are in any meaningful sense ‘better’ or ‘going beyond’ science, thereby not yielding any comfort to the purveyors of woo. Each has its proper domain of application, and of course, there are plenty of areas of overlap and interaction.” (link)

 “The important point, which we both recognize, is that pure intuition, revelation, and unchallenged dogma are not ways of finding out things, other than about the subjective nature of the person who experiences them.” (link)

·               " - - - humanity has developed its approach to knowledge over time. Initially, much of our knowledge was superstitious and mythical. Mythology provided explanations. A philosophical approach, based on logic and reason, developed in Greece and Italy from about the sixth century BCE. Today, modern science has its feet firmly placed on evidence. Scientific ideas are, must be, tested against reality.

·                "To assert today that we should revert to a pre-scientific era, that theology or philosophy should trump scientific knowledge, is to claim that mythology/logic/reason is more reliable than evidence.

·                "Of course logic and reason are important – and they can contribute to knowledge. They can provide a synthesis, an overview, and intuitions to the researcher. But they are not a substitute for evidence. In the end our reason and logic must conform to the evidence, not displace it.

·                "It’s not surprising that philosophy/logic has limitations. It is after all just a refinement of common sense by reason. Philosophical/logical principles arise from intuitions and may not properly represent reality. Quantum mechanics is an obvious example.

·                "Logical distortions for ideological reasons are inherent in the process. In science, the requirement of evidential input counters this subjectivity." (link)