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)
