Is science the fundamental source of knowledge?

[Herr Abubu]

Without science there wouldn't be any Kmarts. No Kmart commercials. No food coupons.

[Laberia]

So because science aids in creating technology, which existed long before science, science proves itself in its fundamental assumptions of the world to be true? Quite a silly argument, but not unexpected. Somehow equating truth with technology, and science with technology, when technology is only a practical application of knowledge in many ways, while a lot of science isn't applied. Neither does it explain how mathematics, most of which is completely theoretical with application in the material world, and which science relies on, can be true. It doesn't answer the question, but only begs it and tries to avoid it. What you are saying is simply that science is practical, but even then a lot of things can be practical and still not true.



Prove science using science. You don't actually have to do it in practice, I just want you to tell me that it can be done in principle and how it would be done.

Science without experiment is only theory. The only way to prove an theory is the experiment. It`s the ring that connects the theory with practice.

[Herr Abubu]

Science without experiment is only theory. The only way to prove an theory is the experiment. It`s the ring that connects the theory with practice.

Have you done any experiments to verify this or are they a priori judgments?

[Laberia]

I didn't say that I digested that sandwich. I said I ate it.

It`s not important if you have digested or if you have vomit. You have ate it. This is an fact, an scientific fact.

[Laberia]

Have you done any experiments to verify this or are they a priori judgments?

It`s not neccesary that i have to make experiments for everything. In this moment i am experimenting what i said in my post 40.

[Herr Abubu]

I didn't say that I digested that sandwich. I said I ate it.

This is the point, I think, where you realize that you are talking a completely different language.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

So because science aids in creating technology, which existed long before science, science proves itself in its fundamental assumptions of the world to be true? Quite a silly argument, but not unexpected.

You had enough time to think of a better argument but as always you prefer insults than an actual argument that carries weight. The technology that existed 'long before science' came about the same way as it does today: a hypothesis that is tested. Someone had an idea. It's tried out. If it fails something else is tried until they hit on a truth.

Somehow equating truth with technology, and science with technology, when technology is only a practical application of knowledge in many ways, while a lot of science isn't applied. Neither does it explain how mathematics, most of which is completely theoretical with application in the material world, and which science relies on, can be true. It doesn't answer the question, but only begs it and tries to avoid it.

The mistake you make - as do all irrational mystic oriented people do - is to believe unknown variables undermines materialism. The question you asked is if science is the fundamental source of knowledge. The only rational answer is to look at what has been the best method to acquire accurate information and to know what can lead to further accurate information once we progress further and unknown variables become known.

Prove science using science. You don't actually have to do it in practice, I just want you to tell me that it can be done in principle and how it would be done.

I did with these past few posts but you're not interested.

[Herr Abubu]

It`s not neccesary that i have to make experiments for everything. In this moment i am experimenting what i said in my post 40.

So science and the need for experimentation are true just because?

[Peterski]

You have ate it. This is an fact, an scientific fact.

"This song is nice", it is true for me, but can be either true or false for someone else.

And there is nothing scientific about it. Although it is the truth, it is not a scientific fact.

[Herr Abubu]

You had enough time to think of a better argument but as always you prefer insults than an actual argument that carries weight. The technology that existed 'long before science' came about the same way as it does today: a hypothesis that is tested. Someone had an idea. It's tried out. If it fails something else is tried until they hit on a truth.




The mistake you make - as do all irrational mystic oriented people do - is to believe unknown variables undermines materialism. The question you asked is if science is the fundamental source of knowledge. The only rational answer is to look at what has been the best method to acquire accurate information and to know what can lead to further accurate information once we progress further and unknown variables become known.





I did with these past few posts but you're not interested.

It's unbelievable how much of an amateur you are, really. Too stupid to even understand other people's arguments and views and why your own are flawed. If science can't prove itself, it means it's not the fundamental source of knowledge or truth. You are too darn stupid to realize that you in fact come out agreeing with this.