Is science the fundamental source of knowledge?

[Sikeliot]

If it is a question of science or religion then yes.

[Myanthropologies]

If it is a question of science or religion then yes.

Even though I'm non-religious, religion does actually explain some parts of science. Both go hand in hand in some ways.

[Herr Abubu]

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

Nor that for every empirical fact there must be some sort of interpretation, which is by definition unempirical, before it becomes a fact. Furthermore, the fact that we can't prove that the empirical world exists while we can prove that we ourselves exist shows that we, and therefore the subjective, hold primacy over the material world, and that we are distinct from it.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

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.

I don't need a guy who just started reading a few excerpts from varying philosophers a year ago in an attempt to validate his conversion from one mystical irrational religion to another to tell me to improve myself. You're not a philosopher king. You're a man-child who finally stopped playing video games and decided he is going to attempt to validate his new found religion. The actual question is what allows us to arrive at a truth? Real world results is tangible evidence. What truth has your faith given to the world? Exactly. Nothing. I'll say it again: there is no man in a mental institution who values evidence to have a belief but there are plenty of people who believe they have magical powers, converse with God, and also claim they are the son of God. I'd like to believe them but my faith in their abilities is lacking. I would love to see water turn into wine. It would be the first time it was ever recorded in history (by someone actually present).

[crazyladybutterfly]

Prove science to be true through science.

it's a valid method. Someone with a good capacity of "mathematical reasoning" and physics knowledge can easily predict the velocity , the enercy and possibly even the demage a rock launched from 20 metres on your head can have... he makes the calculi through the physics laws (discovered through the scientific method) , makes an experiment on you while using technology that would enable him to calculate velocity etc ... and can prove to us that science is a relable way to predict the future/how things work.

now we can say that science can't let us know anything , which is most likely true. we can say that science can't refute that some dude was a prophet some thousands of years ago . true. i would agree that there is some chance that there is a superior entity who might not allow us , humans as a whole , to know the truth but in some way sends messages to some peopple he sees as special. science can't prove otherwise and we cannot know if it is true.
but at the same time can we consider having faith in something as exactly knowing something? maybe we can if in theory the event is true and one holds a very strong faith without having any doubt.
but does a detective (who highly suspects a person to be murder ) know exactly how things are without having any sort of proof?
considering how very few people are supposedly chosen as "revelators" and how very few humans totally believe them.. i would say mankind (meaning the vast majority of humans) cannot really know the truth unless it is proved through the scientific method and is vastly accepted... maybe (i doubt it but yeah) only few can

[crazyladybutterfly]

Prove science to be true through science.

maybe science can be false if we are living in a "false reality" , if there is something that make us perceive the universe as different than it is.. for whatever reason

but it sounds absurd to me to be true though i cannot say how much this is likely to happen... my instinct would say most likely impossible but i can only guess through it .

[crazyladybutterfly]

There is nothing wrong with believing in something which has not been proven or disproven. For example gravity existed 20,000 years ago, no matter if cavemen who lived at that time believed in it or not. Gravity was just as true 20,000 years ago as it was in Newton's times. It did not "become true" after Newton.

Science is just a tool which allows us to discover the truth. It is not a source of the truth.

not really the proof of gravity was under their eyes. of course they couldnt and didnt believe how this worked .. scientists discovered that through the scientific method

[Profileid]

Depends on what you mean by "science", "fundamental" and "knowledge".
If I witnessed something supernatural happen with my own eyes, how is that any different than a scientist making an observation? Even if it can't be replicated(as many phenomena in nature/existence can't but are real nonetheless), it doesn't make it any less plausible since it's still a person seeing something.


Bonus

[crazyladybutterfly]

edit

[Ultra]

Herr Abubu you are right. I thought about this for two days and laid two nights sleepless. How do you prove science exists with science? You can't.