Is science the fundamental source of knowledge?

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

You're just affirming my point of view.

Good to know you're not interested in real world results.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Yes, absolutely. Empiricism or reality triumphs over epistemology every time.

[Herr Abubu]

Good to know you're not interested in real world results.

One doesn't exclude the other, but one takes primacy over the other. If you weren't so limited as a person it would be fairly easy to understand.

[Herr Abubu]

Yes, absolutely. Empiricism or reality triumphs over epistemology every time.

On what grounds do you say this? (You're using epistemology wrongly, by the way.)

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

On what grounds do you say this? (You're using epistemology wrongly, by the way.)

"Epistemology (Listeni/ᵻˌpɪstᵻˈmɒlədʒi/; from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning "knowledge", and λόγος, logos, meaning "logical discourse") is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge.[1]

Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. Much of the debate in epistemology centers on four areas: (1) the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification,[2][3] (2) various problems of skepticism, (3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and (4) the criteria for knowledge and justification."

Sounds impressive, but it is meaningless, just like Metaphysics, mere word games, or a play on words.

[DRUM]

even without going into metaphysics, it surprises me how many people base their whole worldview on science, considering it is accurate only to a certain degree and doesn't even describe 'material' reality as it is

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

One doesn't exclude the other, but one takes primacy over the other. If you weren't so limited as a person it would be fairly easy to understand.

What I understand is you have an aversion to real world results because it undermines your faith based belief that hasn't revealed any knowledge to humanity. Real world results is the standard that should be met: actual knowledge being acquired. This advil I'm taking didn't come from some guy being divinely inspired. That should be easy to understand.

[Herr Abubu]

What I understand is you have an aversion to real world results because it undermines your faith based belief that hasn't revealed any knowledge to humanity. Real world results is the standard that should be met: actual knowledge being acquired. This advil I'm taking didn't come from some guy being divinely inspired. That should be easy to understand.

What should be easy to understand is that we're talking about truth, not simply practicality. All you are able to say is that what you believe in is practical in some way. Well enough, maybe it is practical, but it is entirely irrelevant. The creation of the horse wheel didn't reveal any deep metaphysical truth about epistemology, ontology or anything. This is something you can't answer because you are a limited, shallow and petty man. The first step to improvement is acknowledging this.

[Herr Abubu]

even without going into metaphysics, it surprises me how many people base their whole worldview on science, considering it is accurate only to a certain degree and doesn't even describe 'material' reality as it is

Not only that. These amateurs don't even understand that the material world to which they give primacy can't be proven.

[Herr Abubu]

"Epistemology (Listeni/ᵻˌpɪstᵻˈmɒlədʒi/; from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning "knowledge", and λόγος, logos, meaning "logical discourse") is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge.[1]

Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. Much of the debate in epistemology centers on four areas: (1) the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification,[2][3] (2) various problems of skepticism, (3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and (4) the criteria for knowledge and justification."

Sounds impressive, but it is meaningless, just like Metaphysics, mere word games, or a play on words.

So how do you define word games? And on what grounds do you say that empiricism trumps metaphysics, which I guess is what you meant (empiricism is in fact an epistemological theory).