Is science the fundamental source of knowledge?

[Herr Abubu]

It's absolutely true. First time that you hit the target. Strange, you have the capacity to make good posts like this.

You two are far more alike than you'd like to believe. Two sides of the same coin currency of Lilliput.

[Oneeye]

Is anyone in this thread aware of the definition of "science" or the root of the word?

[Oneeye]

Well, perceiving with the senses is the only tangible way how we can research the universe.

Even scientists use their senses. If they had no senses, they could not do any experiments.



Can science determine whose perception of this song is true and whose perception is false?

Music theory... Sound wave frequencies being mixed and matched. How a chord sounds is based on the combination of frequencies and how well the align. etc. How a chord progression sounds has also been studied. There is a reason that so many popular songs share the same progressions.

[Casandrinos]

Science is not fundamental ofc. It has no philosophy behind it apart from explanations that interpet realities.

This is why it can be used for both good and bad. And this is why ignorant people sticking at it will be inevitably brainwashed and become superstitious. Exactly what they accuse religious people for

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

You two are far more alike than you'd like to believe. Two sides of the same coin currency of Lilliput.

We're alike in that we can agree on what is objectively proven to be true, while you have a preference for believing whatever suits your fancy because of whatever emotional need you need to fill as do all religious people. You believe a guy who claimed was the son of God walked around doing magic tricks. There is no one in a mental institution who demands to see tangible proof to hold a belief as a truth but there are plenty of people in such places who think they have magical powers, or think they are the son of God, or think they converse with God.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Science is not fundamental ofc. It has no philosophy behind it apart from explanations that interpet realities.

This is why it can be used for both good and bad. And this is why ignorant people sticking at it will be inevitably brainwashed and become superstitious. Exactly what they accuse religious people for

Give an example of such a superstition.

[Dandelion]

Is anyone in this thread aware of the definition of "science" or the root of the word?

It's an odd question. Do you believe in science? As if science comes from a predisposed tome of knowledge you have to learn by rote.

[Oneeye]

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Science:

1
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
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>
3
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
4
: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

It came from the Latin word "scientia"... which means "knowledge"



Of course, I understand that Herr is arguing against scientific study as the sole source of "knowledge". But given that it is the systemic study of knowledge obtained with observable and REPEATABLE results.. it is absolutely the root of our comprehensive knowledge. "Personal truths" are not truths, but opinions. Universal constants, are truths.

[Herr Abubu]

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:





It came from the Latin word "scientia"... which means "knowledge"



Of course, I understand that Herr is arguing against scientific study as the sole source of "knowledge". But given that it is the systemic study of knowledge obtained with observable and REPEATABLE results.. it is absolutely the root of our comprehensive knowledge. "Personal truths" are not truths, but opinions. Universal constants, are truths.

I have to correct you. I argue against the philosophical underpinnings of science. Science is not any of the things you have mentioned so far. The argument from etymology is ridiculous because it's simply a name given to an institution and worldview, that which we call science, but it isn't exactly knowledge in itself just because it is Latin for knowledge. Then a question: how do you know which results are true and which are not?

[Insuperable]

Music theory... Sound wave frequencies being mixed and matched. How a chord sounds is based on the combination of frequencies and how well the align. etc. How a chord progression sounds has also been studied. There is a reason that so many popular songs share the same progressions.

That is all nice, but it does not explain someone's taste in music. Maybe to a point, but it is more complicated than that and it also includes social factors, mindset of an individual and personality, this and that.