Are there any other ways of knowing? Well, that depends on what kind of knowledge you seek. If you're interested in "truth", which I loosely define as factually correct information, then my answer is no. The application of evidence and rationality is the only way to go.
Lots of people disagree. For the sake of discussion, I've selected some examples from an article on The Nature of Science and Scientific Theories published by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association 2006. They propose four different ways of knowing.
People have several ways that they know about their world. The chart below lists some of the ways of knowing. One way of knowing is no more valid that another to most people. However, as you read the chart please note that science is a way of knowing that requires the use of certain rules and methods that differs from the other means of knowing. Scientific knowledge limited to the natural world. Scientific knowledge and religious knowledge do not have to be contradictory. It is important to know these differences, so that they can be complementary.Why can't the science way of knowing address questions like "Is there any evidence of purpose in evolution?" "Does life have any meaning?" and "Is there any evidence of Gods?" Why are these questions arbitrarily ruled out of bounds? Does it mean that we can't apply evidence and rationality to questions about the possibility of purpose?
Religious Knowledge
- Seeks answers to any question that can be posed including answers to the ultimate questions (What is my purpose? What is the meaning of life? Is there a supreme being? etc.).
- Explanations can include supernatural forces.
- Is a belief system and seeks truths.
Philosophic Knowledge
- Seeks answers to any question that can be posed including answers to the ultimate (What is my purpose? What is the meaning of life? Is there a supreme being? etc.).
- Explanations can include supernatural forces and viewpoints
- Is a point of view and seeks truths.
Cultural Knowledge
- Seeks answers to any question that can be posed including answers to the ultimate questions (What is my purpose? What is the meaning of life? etc.), but generally relates to how people treat one another.
- Explanations can include supernatural forces and other historical viewpoints.
- May be a belief system rooted in historical views and seeks truths.
Science Knowledge
- Can only seek answers about the natural world but cannot answer ultimate questions (Is there a god? What is the meaning of life?).
- Explanations cannot include supernatural forces.
- Is not a belief system nor seeks truths.
If religious, philosophical and cultural knowledge can be "beliefs" or "points of view" then what kind of knowledge is that? These may be some sort of "ways of knowing" but knowing about what? Surely not factual knowledge of the sort that would be convincing to an impartial observer?
Finally, why are the other three "ways of knowing" referred to as ways of "seeking truths" but science is the only one that does NOT "seek truth"? What does the scientific way of knowing seek ... lies?
Sokal, Alan (2008) What is science and why should we care?, Third Annual Sense About Science lecture February 27, 2008, University College London (UK)
34 comments :
"NOMA! Look, here's my wallet, please don't.... I swear that's all I've... AAAGH! HELP! NOMA! NOMA!"
Lurker #753
"Is there any evidence of Gods" is a different question than "Is there a God." Of course, if the answer to the first question is "No" (or more likely, "not enough to support that Gods exist"), then the answer to the second should be "not as far as we can tell."
As for other ways of seeking "truths" that are somehow beyond evidence-based inquiry, there's an implicit assumption that such truths exist. IMO, that assumption is unfounded. (Which is not to say that such truths can't exist; merely that we shouldn't assume they do exist.)
Sokal? hehehe
Sokal simply fooled himself with his own hoax.
So philosophical small magazine "social text" published a reputed scientist's opinion, without knowing the physics to adequately judge its content. Therefore, philosophy and postmodernism is baloney? That's very lightheaded, and I'm being charitable.
Rather than Sokal, maybe you would like to look into what a true heavyweight like Niels Bohr had to say about notions such as objectivity and positivism.
Sokal simply used his scientific authority to fool a philosophical magazine into publishing stuff about physics he knew was crap. Guess what: If you HAVE scientific authority and then lie, you WILL fool non-experts.
Are there any other ways of knowing? Well, that depends on what kind of knowledge you seek. If you're interested in "truth", which I loosely define as factually correct information, then my answer is no.
The topic, epistemology -- what is the nature of knowledge, is complex and has occupied the attention of some of the finest minds for thousands of years, being one of the four cornerstones of modern philosophy (the others are metaphysics, ethics and logic). Neither the Arkansas Science Teachers Association, nor indeed this blog, are likely to do the subject suitable justice in a few paragraphs.
...factual knowledge of the sort that would be convincing to an impartial observer
Does this impartial observer exist? Who is he/she? Why does this person's impartiality and capacity to be convinced impact the truth or falsity of allegedly factual statements?
What the previous anon said. This is a very involved topic that you won't do justice to here. When you start talking about "absolute truth", you're skating on thin ice.
...factual knowledge of the sort that would be convincing to an impartial observer
Science requires at least a grain of "objectivity", but when it comes right down to it, is there anything that is *not* subjective? Is there such a thing as an objective experience of reality? You have this model of an objective universe in your mind, but in reality, it's all first-person experience. This is not only a philosophical problem, but also became a tangible problem in quantum mechanics in the last century. I don't think scientists have conclusively found a way out of it yet.
anonymous says,
The topic, epistemology -- what is the nature of knowledge, is complex and has occupied the attention of some of the finest minds for thousands of years, being one of the four cornerstones of modern philosophy (the others are metaphysics, ethics and logic). Neither the Arkansas Science Teachers Association, nor indeed this blog, are likely to do the subject suitable justice in a few paragraphs.
I'm well aware of the complexity of the issue. Nevertheless, when people say that there are other ways of knowing we can't just throw up our hands and declare that the subject is too complicated, can we?
If you'd like to defend the idea that there are valid ways of gaining reliable knowledge other than science then please go right ahead. Take all the time you want and don't be afraid of using four syllable words. Most of us have dictionaries.
anonymous says,
Science requires at least a grain of "objectivity", but when it comes right down to it, is there anything that is *not* subjective? Is there such a thing as an objective experience of reality? You have this model of an objective universe in your mind, but in reality, it's all first-person experience. This is not only a philosophical problem, but also became a tangible problem in quantum mechanics in the last century. I don't think scientists have conclusively found a way out of it yet.
I used to enjoy those kind of debates when I was much younger.
Now I just find them a waste of time.
The chair is real.
Trees make a noise if they fall when no one's around.
Deal with it. :-)
If you can't deal with it then the science vs. religion debate is the least of your problems. You don't even know if your spouse exists!
Exactly how much of scientific knowledge have you personally observed?
John Pieret asks,
Exactly how much of scientific knowledge have you personally observed?
About 0.06% at last count. And you?
If you'd like to defend the idea that there are valid ways of gaining reliable knowledge other than science then please go right ahead.
How about logic and deduction? They aren't science, but they can also be wrong, just like science.
The chair is real.
Trees make a noise if they fall when no one's around.
Deal with it. :-)
When you're having a good dream, that naked woman sure seems real too, doesn't she ;) You don't question it then either, do you? (that would spoil the fun...)
Your's is a simplistic curmudgeonly answer to the deepest of questions. You want scientific truth? I suggest you look deeper into QM experiments having to do with delayed choice, retrocausuality, and recent EPR experiments that question realism in a very fundamental way.
And how do you know the other 99.94% is real knowledge?
If you'd like to defend the idea that there are valid ways of gaining reliable knowledge other than science then please go right ahead
Do mathematician have 'knowledge'? Did they use the scientific method to obtain whatever it is mathematicians think they know?
I come down on Dr. Moran's side in the "How do you know it's the truth?" discussion.
From Boswell's Life of Johnson:
"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- 'I refute it thus.'"
Though Gödel may have shown that even mathematical logic is not provably self-consistent, when I give someone two bucks for a $1.50 item and get a quarter change, I still know I'm being cheated (and so would all those in this thread saying "It's only in our heads," or demanding strict proof of the sum total of scientific knowledge).
Galileo may or may not have simultaneously dropped a heavier and a lighter ball from the Tower of Pisa to show they both struck the ground at the same time, but you or I can repeat the experiment for ourselves and the result will always be the same. On the other hand, prior to Galileo's time, philosophical discussions of what might occur in such a case could have turned out either way. Re religion as a way of knowing, if I wanted to walk across the top of the Sea of Galilee and stay dry, I doubt I could repeat the result of what's said to have taken place there a couple of millenia ago.
I'll gladly take science as my method of knowing the truth of these things, and will continue as well to rely every day, as all of us do, on scientific truths discovered by others. (E.g., I travel in airplanes to reach various destinations but won't step out of a second-story window without a ladder, though both airplanes and I are heavier than air [don't know which is more dense!], thanks to scientific truths discovered by Bernoulli, etc., that I hadn't personally verified prior to my first airplane ride.)
Regarding "moral truth," which some see as the particular bailiwick of religion, I think Dawkins' The God Delusion is particularly effective in pointing out that people aren't blank moral slates taking truths from religion, but in fact bring their own ideas of morality to religious practice. (Examples on request.) While there isn't a science of morality and I doubt there could be, science may well be able to elucidate at some point the origins of what we call moral inclinations.
When you start talking about "absolute truth", you're skating on thin ice.
It is odd that your comment contains the first use of that phrase on the page. Whom are you quoting when you put "absolute truth" in quotation marks? Are you familiar with the concept of a "strawman fallacy"?
Regarding "moral truth,"...
I suggest that "moral truth" is a category error. Shouldn't we rather talk about "moral values"?
Whom are you quoting when you put "absolute truth" in quotation marks? Are you familiar with the concept of a "strawman fallacy"?
I suppose that's a valid point. However, Larry defined truth loosely as "factually correct information". It's not clear what the context or constraints are which make that a context-sensitive truth, or whether that is even a coherent definition of truth at all. (philosophers are trained to take pain-in-the-ass pedantry to unbelievable extremes).
All systems but science that call themselves epistemic lack one crucial feature: consistency.
With religion, philosophy, even (in some sense) mathematics, what you get out depends completely on what you put in: Your conclusions are only as good as your premises, and these systems give us no good way to decide between competing premises.
Mathematics, for instance, does not tell us whether parallel lines converge, diverge or do neither. Mathematics merely says that if you pick one you'll get a particular kind of geometry; it doesn't tell us which geometry is the "one true" geometry.
So, is mathematics an epistemic system? I would argue, fundamentally, no it is not.
Science, on the other hand, does give us a consistent way of at least evaluating an internally consistent set of premises: If the observational statements those premises entail contradict actual observation, then at least one premise is false and must be discarded.
While religion purports to "answer" questions that science cannot, we have never seen any well-defined way of agreeing on the answers, or the premises that underlie the answers. Is God good? You can assume yes or no, with no way to tell the difference.
It's not enough to just answer questions. You have to have some way of establishing agreement about the answers. Science does so; no other supposedly "epistemic" system does the same.
Is there such thing as absolute inconsistency? To be random is still consistently inconsistent. Halfway random is consistently half-consistent, and so on. It seems that consistency is also context-sensitive.
Is there such thing as absolute inconsistency? To be random is still consistently inconsistent. Halfway random is consistently half-consistent, and so on. It seems that consistency is also context-sensitive.
Huh? I didn't understand a word you just said.
Anonymous is confusing "random" with "inconsistent." Once that is understood, and denied, there is no remaining substance to his statement.
Are there many religions? - Yes.
Are there many philosophies? - Yes.
Are there many cultures? - Yes.
Are there many sciences? - No.
Ask a Democrat, a Republican, a logical positivist, a Confucian, a Buddhist, a well trained ape, a robot all to carry out a scientific experiment in the same location such as measuring the speed of light, or the weight of a garden gnome, and they will all (barring errors) get the same results. They will all 'know' the same thing based on the scientific way of knowing. Ask them the meaning of life... and you will end up knowing nothing except different opinions.
Anonymous is confusing "random" with "inconsistent.
Not at all. In fact, my statement says they are different - go back and re-read.
Give me a definition for consistency and inconsistency.
To put in another way: consistent patterns can be observed in anything, at any level of abstraction, depending on context.
Are there many sciences?
Um ... Bayesian, likelihoodist and frequentist statistical inferences are considerably different and often mutually contradictory ways of looking at scientific evidence.
and they will all (barring errors) get the same results.
Pragmatists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries made the observation that scientific experiments almost never yield the exact same results and, therefore, it was necessary to make a judgment of how good we could expect our incomplete and imperfect evidence to be and to call that "truth." As the name of the school implies, it is a highly practical approach. Whether that counts as "knowlege" or (as the pragmatists say) estimates of knowledge, is another matter.
And, as noted, Bayesianism, likelihoodism and frequentism will all draw different inferences from those estimates.
"And, as noted, Bayesianism, likelihoodism and frequentism will all draw different inferences from those estimates."
These are methods of dealing with incomplete data - fair enough - but all are based on the assumption that the underlying data is consistent. This assumption is then confirmed (for scientific purposes) by repeated observations and the support of other related experiments. Science is the way of knowing that converges on a common, repeatable view of observable reality.
There are no demons changing the size of molecules, no esoteric essences that only the high priests can comprehend, no calls to higher authorities. Science is the way of knowing that converges on a common, repeatable view of observable reality.
To make quibbles about the absolute knowable nature of truth (whilst fascinating as an exercise) is one of the many philosophical ways of departing from the scientific method.
To make quibbles about the absolute knowable nature of truth (whilst fascinating as an exercise) is one of the many philosophical ways of departing from the scientific method.
It is equally true to say that ignoring "quibbles" about the the truth value delivered by the scientific method is one way to depart from the strict application of evidence and rationality that Larry claims is the sine qua non of the method itself.
I fully agree that the scientific method is the best available method of "knowing." To make universalist statements about science while ignoring the rationally-arrived-at limitations on the method is a form of special pleading. If you are in for a penny on rationalism, you have to be in for the pound ... if you want to be consistent.
consistent patterns can be observed in anything, at any level of abstraction, depending on context.
Indeed. That's why science works so well. To say something different from what science is saying, you would have to say that any definable pattern can be "observed", that science is not just underdetermined by the data, but that it is vacuous, that you can support any assertion by appeal to the data.
But this is simply not the case. Yes, the patterns the data supports do depend on context, but if your context is well-defined, then you can support only one pattern. Furthermore, there are patterns that cannot be supported by observation, no matter what well-defined context you supply.
In science, context supplies only meaning, but the methodology supplies a consistent truth to that meaning.
Bayesian, likelihoodist and frequentist statistical inferences are considerably different and often mutually contradictory ways of looking at scientific evidence.
They are not mutually contradictory. Where they are mutually applicable, they all give the same answer.
"Absolute" and "relative" are two of the most over-used and vaguely defined terms in philosophy. Aside from the literal meaning (i.e. stating a relation), there are at least four additional dichotomies covered by these terms:
Universal vs. Temporal
Perfect vs. Partial
Certain vs. Uncertain
Concrete vs. Abstract
Necessary vs. Contingent
There's no requirement for philosophy to be precise. Philosophy is a literary genre, and there is a lot of good philosophy (e.g. Derrida) that's good because it's vague.
On the other hand, there is work to be done, and we do need to be definite and precise to to talk specifically about knowledge.
...there are at least four additional dichotomies covered by these terms...
... amongst our dichotomies are such diverse elements as...
What I am observing in your article is the all-too-common conflation between science as method and Science as belief. I believe it is vitally important to disentangle the two.
I love the scientific method: it is an empowering tool. The purpose of the scientific method is to develop an explanatory narrative that yields dependable results in similar situations. As we are all well aware, sometimes that narrative fails to produce the intended results – sometimes there is an unseen variable that comes to our attention and we make adjustments to that narrative to fit the discovery. Thus scientific theories change and develop, as does our capacity to create intentional results.
Beliefs, on the other hand, are concerned with Truth. Not so for the scientific method. Truth is subjective, historical and contextual. My case in point is Newton’s mechanics: they perform admirably at explaining and predicting phenomena like motion. So are they the Truth? Since we’ve shifted our focus to the context of atoms and their components - to phenomena occurring at the speed of light - we realize that the Newtonian model loses its explanatory power. Truth simply isn’t a paradigm that is applicable to the scientific method. (And as a result, Mr. Loran, nor can science be said to be ‘lying’).
Truth is nonetheless extremely important: it informs and guides our actions on a daily basis. But I reiterate that it falls into the domain of Belief systems and not science. And I can just about guarantee that there are as many Truths out there in the world as there are people. If you’re still not convinced that truth and science are separate domains, ask yourself why you do science in the first place. Is it to uncover the Truth? I’m sure many church/synagogue/mosque-goers, nature lovers, etc. will give you that same answer as to why they do what they do. Is it to improve human lives? The notion of what constitutes ‘improvement’ is just as subjective as what constitutes the truth. What I’m getting at is that Truth is concerned with why?, while the scientific method isn’t.
Finally, I’m writing this as a simple call to humility: it takes humility to acknowledge that other peoples’ perspectives and understandings of the world are unique and valid, and that understandings can be multiple. The history of human conflict probably revolves around exclusive claims to the Truth. Meanwhile, an open-minded scientist is open to many sources of inspiration.
If you’re still not convinced that truth and science are separate domains, ask yourself why you do science in the first place. Is it to uncover the Truth?
Yes. Science as a way of knowing is concerned with discovering knowledge and knowledge is truth. Untrue knowledge doesn't exist.
Finally, I’m writing this as a simple call to humility: it takes humility to acknowledge that other peoples’ perspectives and understandings of the world are unique and valid, and that understandings can be multiple.
I have no problem understanding the other peoples' views are different than my own. The question before us is what counts as true knowledge. You have failed to demonstrate that religion is a different way of knowing that discovers true knowledge. Just saying it's so, doesn't count.
Our disagreement arises out of the fact that I am not questioning "what counts as true knowledge;" rather I argue that the truth is multiple, contextual and historical - i.e that it can't be disentangled from human affairs. This is a philosophical problematization of the truth that I wish more scientists would take up.
However, I think another issue here is that you weren't writing this blog with people like me in mind. I can see where you would have trouble with someone who might be a dogmatic creationist, for example (I have trouble with dogmatics of all walks). I can see you asking yourself "How can this person believe the world was created in seven days with all the geological evidence we have to the contrary?" Fair enough - but putting aside the dogmatics who cannot accept a multiple account of reality for a moment - try to envision where a creation belief fits into someone's life: it positions you within the wider context of the world, and gives meaning to your interactions with other humans. Questions of "why bother getting up in the morning?" that we ALL have to answer in our own way. This is a subjective, yet fundamentally important, question addressed by our beliefs, and is at the same time completely outside of the framework of the scientific method.
Post a Comment