Is Science the Only Means of Knowing?

[MrsFoundit]

I was wondering if perhaps instead of suggesting a change in the wording, it would have been more honest to just vote "yes", rather than vote "no" and then leave a comment declaring "yes" to be the real answer.

"Is science the most reliable method of testing if something is true"? Yes
Or
"Is science the only way of knowing"? No

Maybe it is "hair splitting", or maybe attempting to avoid making a clear statement.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You said you don't need science to know your t-shirt is red.

Depends on what you mean by "know".
Would you say (assuming you had all of these thing) "I know my T-shirt is red, my pet is a dog and my house number is 43"? Or would you instead say "I cannot know any of these things to be absolutely true, because it's always possible I could be mistaken"?

But you also said science is the most reliable method for knowing what is true.

No, I didn't. I said:
"Perhaps it might be more helpful to ask "Is science the most reliable method of testing if something is true"? In which case, the answer would be "Yes".
Testing. Not knowing. They're two different things.
Unless you're saying "I am testing what colour my T-shirt is when I look at it," which would be a rather strange use of the word "test".

So when you believe your t-shirt is red sans science, do you know that belief is true?

No. I could be wearing coloured contact lenses without knowing. I could be under some form of mind control. I could be dreaming. Generally, however, we do not say "I'd like to say that I have a red T-shirt, but who among us can really know anything for certain?"

If a simple observation that your t-shirt is red is less reliable than scientifically testing your t-shirt for color, then can you really say you "know" it's red, or do you only believe it's red?

If I am wrong about this, I am probably wrong about everything else that I think to be true. Therefore, I shall say that I "know" I am wearing a red T-shirt, for the sake of not having to continually evaluate everything that forms a part of my reality. That's what people generally mean when they say they "know" something.

I find it curious that your question in this thread is "Is science the only way of knowing" when scientists would tell you that we can never prove anything in science. Anything we think we know is, in science, at least technically provisional; in other words, a good scientist acknowledges that they could always be wrong.

So it looks to me like you're just quibbling here about the meaning of the word "know", and I'm still not really sure what your purpose it. Your reference to the other thread didn't help me much.

Oh well. I suppose if you want us to know, you'll tell us.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"Is science the most reliable method of testing if something is true"? Yes
Or
"Is science the only way of knowing"? No

Since this is in the Christian Apologetics section, perhaps remembering that Yahweh revealed to His people what is true, so that is the most reliable way to know that anyone has ever heard of, in terms of the Scripture and Yahweh's Ways.

This also agrees with "no", science is not the only way of knowing.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Since this is in the Christian Apologetics section, perhaps remembering that Yahweh revealed to His people what is true, so that is the most reliable way to know that anyone has ever heard of, in terms of the Scripture and Yahweh's Ways.

This also agrees with "no", science is not the only way of knowing.

Since this is the Christian Apologetics section: prove it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Since the "way of knowing", as in how do those in union with the son and with the Father KNOW that they/we/ have life, is BY THE SPIRIT, thus
it cannot be known, and is not known, to those opposed to life/ outside of Christ Jesus.
The Father freely and generously REVEALS THIS to little children, but hides this from 'educated ones'.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Since the "way of knowing", as in how do those in union with the son and with the Father KNOW that they/we/ have life, is BY THE SPIRIT, thus
it cannot be known, and is not known, to those opposed to life/ outside of Christ Jesus.
The Father freely and generously REVEALS THIS to little children, but hides this from 'educated ones'.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
- Christopher Hitchens.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No worries at all.
'Expected' and normal.

biblehub.com › 1_corinthians

1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural man does not accept the things ...
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to ... And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. ... a one cannot grasp spiritual truth

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No worries at all.
'Expected' and normal.

biblehub.com › 1_corinthians

1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural man does not accept the things ...
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to ... And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. ... a one cannot grasp spiritual truth

Just another assertion. Quoting the Bible means nothing.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

To the faithful alive in Christ Jesus, His Word means LIFE, ETERNAL LIFE !

Just another assertion. Quoting the Bible means nothing.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

To the faithful alive in Christ Jesus, His Word means LIFE, ETERNAL LIFE !

Debating forum. Not church.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

God's Word is the best and most powerful and most accurate correct way of "knowing" anything. (per the Title question)

 

[MrsFoundit]

Since this is in the Christian Apologetics section, perhaps remembering that Yahweh revealed to His people what is true, so that is the most reliable way to know that anyone has ever heard of, in terms of the Scripture and Yahweh's Ways.

This also agrees with "no", science is not the only way of knowing.

Excuse me, but my entire post there is not my opinion at all, it is a comment on a problem with someone else voting "no" then leaving a post saying "actually yes".

My own vote and comment is in post no 11.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Generally, however, we do not say "I'd like to say that I have a red T-shirt, but who among us can really know anything for certain?"

Those of us who do not need to explain an atheist world view do not mean this at all. When "know" is not so hard to define, because we do not rely on just physical evidence, and thereby need to deny concepts as extant, and can include context unhindered, I can just "know" my t shirt is red.

I am well aware that scientists usually say they cannot "know", but the title of the thread is not asking what scientists say, it is asking anyone to vote.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Just another assertion. Quoting the Bible means nothing.

You seem to have mistaken your definition of "prove it" for all definitions here.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

@MrsFoundit - I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

 

[Resha Caner]

So it looks to me like you're just quibbling here about the meaning of the word "know", and I'm still not really sure what your purpose it. Your reference to the other thread didn't help me much.

Actually, I thought you might be headed toward quibbling over the meaning of knowing. I consider it a silly academic exercise. But if you say you're not quibbling … OK. Though how you can say you're not quibbling when you reworded my question to use the word "test" instead of "know" and then seem to be trying to make some kind of point about how testing isn't knowing … ay yai yai.

As for my purpose, it's quite simple. I wanted to see how people would vote. When people start down the "I don't get what you mean" path, it sometimes seems (as in this case) that they're trying too hard. That they're insisting on some deeply rooted motive when actually it's quite simple and right on the surface.​

Depends on what you mean by "know".
Would you say (assuming you had all of these thing) "I know my T-shirt is red, my pet is a dog and my house number is 43"? Or would you instead say "I cannot know any of these things to be absolutely true, because it's always possible I could be mistaken"?

Yes, it's always possible to come up with ridiculous scenarios that challenge our ability to know, and it's always possible for people to be mistaken. IMO all that accomplishes is to make the word "know" , maybe even the concept "know", useless.

For me, when I say I know something, it means I'm confident enough in my knowledge that I will act on it as if my knowledge is true. It seems to me that's what most people mean, but I'm willing to let them express it in their own words.

I find it curious that your question in this thread is "Is science the only way of knowing" when scientists would tell you that we can never prove anything in science. Anything we think we know is, in science, at least technically provisional; in other words, a good scientist acknowledges that they could always be wrong.

I phrased it that way because I've had conversations where other people phrase it that way. As soon as I challenge the statement, they dig in and refuse to concede. I'm well aware of the scientific practice of confidence levels - the more formal equivalent of the colloquial understanding of knowing.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Okay, Resha. Thank you very much. It seems - and this is rather a surprise to me on CF - that what we have here is two well-meaning people who may actually agree with each other.

Actually, I thought you might be headed toward quibbling over the meaning of knowing. I consider it a silly academic exercise. But if you say you're not quibbling … OK. Though how you can say you're not quibbling when you reworded my question to use the word "test" instead of "know" and then seem to be trying to make some kind of point about how testing isn't knowing … ay yai yai.

I think, actually, that this isn't quibbling, but rather an important distinction.
Put it like this: wouldn't there be two very different meanings if you said "I know that I am wearing a red T-shirt" and "I am testing to see if I am wearing a red T-shirt"?

As for my purpose, it's quite simple. I wanted to see how people would vote. When people start down the "I don't get what you mean" path, it sometimes seems (as in this case) that they're trying too hard. That they're insisting on some deeply rooted motive when actually it's quite simple and right on the surface.

I've certainly encountered that in the past as well. But I'm still none the wiser as to why you asked this question. Why do you want to know what people will say?

For me, when I say I know something, it means I'm confident enough in my knowledge that I will act on it as if my knowledge is true. It seems to me that's what most people mean, but I'm willing to let them express it in their own words.

I think that sounds very sensible. That's more or less what I'd say as well.
So, to answer your question: no, science is certainly not the only way of knowing something. But when it comes to the difficult questions, the ones where you can't tell "just by looking" - or your first impression may turn out to be mistaken - science is one of the best means of finding out the truth. Others might be mathematics and logic, which are related to science.

 

[MrsFoundit]

@MrsFoundit - I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

Sorry, my post 33 or 34?

 

[MrsFoundit]

For me, when I say I know something, it means I'm confident enough in my knowledge that I will act on it as if my knowledge is true. It seems to me that's what most people mean, but I'm willing to let them express it in their own words.

I am 90% sure I can say "yes" to this.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Excuse me, but my entire post there is not my opinion at all, it is a comment on a problem with someone else voting "no" then leaving a post saying "actually yes".

My own vote and comment is in post no 11.

I'm not sure how or if that's related to my post.
That contrary behavior/contradictions in the people/ 'yes' / 'no' behavior is seen every day throughout all politics, all thread, all the world.