Is science the fundamental source of knowledge?

[Petros Agapetos]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...its+philosophy
On the limits of philosophy.

There are certain questions to which philosophy cannot give conclusive answers. Among these questions are the question of the existence of the physical world and the problem of the justification of induction. As one looks at blue light, the blueness one perceives is in the mind, yet the physical object, the light of frequency ‘blue’, belongs to the domain of the physical world and has physical properties, such as having a certain frequency and being located in time and space as well as being determinate, public, and persistent in nature. While objects which are perceived by the mind, the blueness of the light, have the properties of sense data, they are indeterminate, private, and instantaneous, and belong to the domain of the mind.

If two things have different properties and belong to domains of a different nature, they are distinct. Therefore sense data (blueness) and physical objects (light of frequency blue) are distinct. Any attempt to verify the existence of public and persistent objects by the testimony of other conscious agents who perceive the physical objects would be circular because it would presuppose that those conscious agents exist in the first place and aren’t merely the result of sense data alone. Therefore there can be no non question begging deductive argument for the existence of blue light by the mere sensation of blueness that one sees when looking at blue light.

No contradiction arises from the supposition that sense data are as they are yet physical objects, like light of frequency blue, do not underlie them, and sense data are perceived in such a way as to create the illusion that they are coming from an external world while in reality they could merely be correlated with collections of sense data induced in the mind. The mind being a pattern seeking entity infers to the best possible explanation for the determinate, public and persistent apparent nature of physical objects, namely that they exist. The belief that the material world exists harmonizes our experience of sense data and is an instinctive belief that cannot be definitively demonstrated by any deductive argument. There is a genuine limitation in the ability of philosophy to give an answer to the question of the existence of the material world. It is naïve to suppose philosophy could give us a definitive answer.

[Petros Agapetos]

No, they aren't constant. Hume, an empiricist, pointed out that we could never know anything for certain through induction. We always have to assume that what happened before is going to happen again, but we never know.

On the Problem of Induction

If one lets go of an object on Earth from a certain distance from the ground, we can infer by induction that it will fall with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s2 due to the applied force of gravity on Earth. This law of nature has been observed and understood by scientists, and it is inferred that this law will hold for any object at any time in the future. This is an inductive inference, which infers a general truth ‘all objects will accelerate at 9.8 m/s2’ from observed instances in which the law holds true.

The principle of induction infers from past instances of a law applying to the next instance that this law will apply, and thereby generalizes to all instances that the law will apply. The justification for making the inductive inference is based on the assumption that the future will resemble the past, which is inferred from the observation that in the past, the future has resembled the past, that is, past futures resembled the past. Any attempt to appeal to the uniformity of nature implicitly assumes that the future will be like the past.

One cannot infer, without begging the question, that in the future the future will be like the past from the fact that in the past the future has been like the past, since this inference already makes use of induction, it assumes that past futures will be like future futures, which once again reduces to inductively inferring that the future will be like the past. Past experience cannot serve as evidence for the truth of the principle of induction. No amount of past instances of an object accelerating at downward can guarantee that in the future the same object will accelerate downward at the same rate.

Any attempt to prove the future will be like the past from the fact that in the past the future has been like the past invokes the very principle that is to be justified and demonstrated. Appeal to observation cannot rationally justify the expectation that the law of gravity will always apply. Any appeal to inductive inference to justify the use of an inductive inference would assume that the use of inductive inference is justified and therefore be circular and beg the very question and hence not be completely or ultimately justifiable. Therefore there can be no inductive justification for inductive inference.

In addition to there not being any inductive way to justify the principle of induction, there can also be no deductive way to justify induction because an inductive inference by its very nature is ampliative or knowledge inducing: the truth of the conclusion contains more information than the premises, and the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion in an inductive argument. It is logically possible that the future does not resemble the past. Therefore there can be no deductive justification for making an inductive inference. Since the principle of induction cannot be justified neither inductively nor deductively, therefore there can be no rational justification for the principle of induction.

The principle of induction is at best an inference to the best explanation. It is an innate instinctive expectation that is not epistemically justified upon close rational examination, yet it is firmly believed because of the nature of the (human) mind to be predisposed to building models of reality with predictive capability in order to learn and make sense of the world. The use of inductive inferences can thereby be considered ‘reasonable’ even though it is not demonstrated to be ultimately justifiable.

There is a genuine tension between what the mind tends to believe by virtue of its nature and what can be demonstrated to be true. While the use of inductive inference cannot be justified rationally, the mind tends to operate under certain basal assumptions: that the universe exists, that we can learn about it, and that models with predictive capability are more useful than models without. Insofar as these fundamental beliefs are assumptions rather than demonstrated truths, there is a genuine limitation of philosophy to give ultimate and conclusive answers.

[Amud]

The most perceptive, thought-out post in this thread so far. One tiny correction, though. I am not making an Godelian argument against science, though Godel is of course relevant to the criticism of any system in a wider sense. I am simply pointing out that scientism contradicts itself, because if it is the fundamental source of knowledge, and the only source of knowledge as these positivists would have it, it should be able to prove itself by itself, which it can't. The whole philosophy that undergirds scientism is so patently false, so absurd, that only idiots could ever believe in it. The reason Godel isn't particularly relevant is because there's no infinite regression to speak of, only a contradictory philosophy.

I might argue that my reasoning isn't so incompatible with yours. If science is the only source of knowledge and it's supposed to prove itself, the contradiction lies in the fact that the proof would require some piece of information. If that piece of information is within science, then this would imply nothing about science's relationship with the world as a whole, only that it is consistent with itself. If that piece of information is outside of science, we would be forced to assume that it is incorrect (or at least can't be considered reliable). So we're not considering the infinite regression case, but we are considering the other two cases I outlined: the cyclical reasoning case and the proof based on shaky grounds (a piece of information coming from an inferior non-science system would be equivalent to an assumption or an axiom).

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

The reliable performance of so many of our modern technological conveniences depends on the repeatability of scientific findings. For example, modern telecommunications technologies, which use the exchange of "packets" of encoded information over a multitude of media from wireless technology to fiber optics, is able to relay complex information thousands of miles around the world in a way that can be decoded by a recipient within seconds. The rapid delivery and high fidelity of such data are not dependent upon faith but upon repeatable phenomena discovered and manipulated using a rigorous, evidence-based approach. Is a cell phone powered by faith? Of course not!

I'm not sure if there are little demons inside my cell phone making it work.

[catgeorge]

Its the other way around accumulative exponential knowledge is accumulated where it is gained by "questioning" traditional conventions correctly and to challenge mainstream prejudices (like the media).. the approach that is required is the rejection of all traditional explanations based on authority, dogma, myth and superstition . Basically anything that is written today is considered false by questioning (knowledge based farming). From there you can structure your mind to begin to think in a mathematical manner.... from there comes science. But without a sound philosophical undertone you will merely be good at following certain concepts and thats it (like 95% of the population due to their own subconscious prejudices and dogmas).

[Herr Abubu]

I might argue that my reasoning isn't so incompatible with yours. If science is the only source of knowledge and it's supposed to prove itself, the contradiction lies in the fact that the proof would require some piece of information. If that piece of information is within science, then this would imply nothing about science's relationship with the world as a whole, only that it is consistent with itself. If that piece of information is outside of science, we would be forced to assume that it is incorrect (or at least can't be considered reliable). So we're not considering the infinite regression case, but we are considering the other two cases I outlined: the cyclical reasoning case and the proof based on shaky grounds (a piece of information coming from an inferior non-science system would be equivalent to an assumption or an axiom).

The problem is that one could never use science to prove the truth of science, first of all. Secondly, because of this fact, by arguing that science is the fundamental source of knowledge, one contradicts oneself, because one does it on unscientific grounds. It is a philosophical, metaphysical (philosophy and metaphysics are for all intents and purposes one and the same, it is only the degenerate philosophy of Anglo-Saxons that would ever deny this) claim when logical positivism denies both.

[Insuperable]

Of course people have individual tastes. But overall: the wavelengths of combined notes and the relativity of successive notes can have the amount of discordance measured. The less discordant, the more "pleasant". That some people prefer less harmony is irrelevant.

Obviously people would not want to listen to music I would compose, but...

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

The problem is that one could never use science to prove the truth of science, first of all. Secondly, because of this fact, by arguing that science is the fundamental source of knowledge, one contradicts oneself, because one does it on unscientific grounds. It is a philosophical, metaphysical (philosophy and metaphysics are for all intents and purposes one and the same, it is only the degenerate philosophy of Anglo-Saxons that would ever deny this) claim when logical positivism denies both.

The scientific method is the only method humanity has to come to an objecive truth. This has been shown with real world results. Results matter. People forget that there is something called 'the real world' and ideas effect people's lives. Mental masturbation is fine in your own home but not when you subject the real world with your magical thinking as a source of truth. Bad ideas have consequences.

[Herr Abubu]

Science is based on faith is a statement that reflects a straw man or equivocation fallacy propagated by apologists to attempt to discredit "belief" in science as being no more sound than belief in God.

Science does contain philosophical underpinnings which are unprovable, which thus require "faith" in the epistemological sense. However, science distinguishes itself from purely faith-based beliefs in the same way that philosophy does; by the application of logic. Science also goes one step further by adhering to demonstrable, repeatable experiments and empirical data. Science is the systematic approach to acquiring knowledge about how the world works using the scientific method — that is, generating hypotheses and theories through observation and testing. Science is intimately linked with technology; technology is developed using scientific discoveries and science is reliant on technology to further its ideas. The goals of science are to learn more about the world and satisfy our natural curiosity and possibly use this knowledge for the betterment of humankind, or for the destruction of humankind, whichever comes first. But note that practical applications is not always the primary motivation for scientific research, hence the phrase "pure science" as opposed to "applied science".

Like any pseudoscience or pseudophilosophy, supernatural beliefs never seem to die. Delusional people will muster any illogical defense to their aid, from NOMA to God works in mysterious ways. The hypothesis that something supernatural exists has always lost out to the hypothesis that mindless natural forces are all that there is in any fair and settled investigation. Because of this undefeated track record, science has a high bar for accepting the supernatural — all reasonably plausible natural explanations must be considered and discounted before any true science will even begin to consider such an explanation.

It's pretty funny how you don't understand other people's position at all and when you can't respond to someone you start copy-pasting something you think is relevant in place of an argument. What I'm saying is something that runs repeatedly through the history of philosophy. If you're going to talk about philosophy you should at least know it to some degree.

[Herr Abubu]

The scientific method is the only method humanity has to come to an objecive truth. This has been shown with real world results. Results matter. People forget that there is something called 'the real world' and ideas effect people's lives. Mental masturbation is fine in your own home but not when you subject the real world with your magical thinking as a source of truth. Bad ideas have consequences.

You're just affirming my point of view.