Is science the fundamental source of knowledge?

[Peterski]

You don't understand what I'm saying: I'm saying there isn't enough evidence to claim it as a truth. I can say unicorns are real but until I find evidence of a unicorn it's not a validated belief (truth).

I understand what you mean.

I just wrote that it's not generally wrong to believe in something which is neither unproven or proven.

I thought that using the word "believe" instead of "know" was sufficient to communicate what I mean.

If you "believe" then it implies that you are not certain, that you don't know for sure.

I can say unicorns are real but until I find evidence of a unicorn it's not a validated belief (truth).

You can say "I believe it is true", or "I know it is true". There is a difference.

If something is unproven, you should say "I believe it is true" and it is not dishonest to say so.

It would be dishonest if you said "I know it is true" without having evidence.

An unproven belief an individual has doesn't mean there is another source of truth. All it means is the person has a belief that can't be proven.

Just one note - not every unproven belief is a belief that can't be proven.

There are unproven beliefs which can be proven, but haven't been proven yet.

I'm saying there isn't enough evidence to claim it as a truth.

You don't need evidence to believe that something is true.

You only need evidence to know that something is true.

[Herr Abubu]

The question asked in this thread is indeed loaded and ultimately meaningless. Science is used to investigate the natural world, thus it requires the natural world to be real and regulated by internally consistent laws. It is indeed an a priori assumption. What gives the world these properties is up to philosophical debate.

It's not meaningless. It's loaded in the sense that I wasn't simply asking a small question without any further implications. It clearly worked as I intended by creating debate and letting certain people expose how stupid the scientistic worldview is. It isn't loaded in the sense that it isn't an accurate description of a position but a description of such a position that subtly answers itself in bias for or against that position.

[Herr Abubu]

That's what you believe because I brought up 'unknown variables' and in your uneducated mind this is proof for your argument (not your own but what you adopt from others because ironically your insult against Petros applies to you as well). It suits your loaded question. The reality is there are unknown variables that gradually become unknown through the scientific process. Science is a building block of information that adds on to each other. Your question is what is the fundamental source of knowledge: what does fundamental mean?



The necessary core of knowledge. A principle that leads us to accurate information. In other words how do we come to knowledge. Of all the possible ways someone can attempt to acquire knowledge we can see which is successful. Obviously scientific principles has had tangible results. As I said it builds on itself and makes unknown variables known. Your argument is basically based on - how can it be the source of knowledge if it doesn't (you assume can't) answer all questions. For some reason you think your religious nonsense is given validity because of the existence of incomplete information. But human knowledge is a gradual process. Your argument is based on a fallacy.

No, no, no. It's pretty funny to see you awkwardly flail around trying to perform a sort of alchemy where it doesn't really matter what you say or what someone else says because you can just change everything to mean whatever you want it to mean, but you're just plain wrong about everything. You admit that you view science as the most practical method towards knowledge, not that it is fundamental to it. If it were, you would be able to prove science using science.

[Herr Abubu]

A hack former atheist. I did find it funny that he wrote his name wrong.

Where did I write this guy's name (wrongly)? What's funny is that you seem to assume, even to the point of making things up out of nothing, that I am on the same level of American intellectual vulgarity as you and Petros Agapetos.

[Peterski]

I can say unicorns are real but until I find evidence of a unicorn it's not a validated belief (truth).

Yes.

You can believe in unicorns being real as long as you have no evidence that they exist.

If you obtain evidence, then you no longer "believe" - you just know that they are real.

[Herr Abubu]

"Fundamental" in this case means "from which all springs at its root"? Our collective scientific knowledge is a complex of known laws linked by reasoning. So, if we know law A, and we observe fact 1, we can deduce that law B is true. In this case, the truth value of law B depends on the truth value of law A. If we attempt to follow the scientific chain of reasoning backwards, we arrive at an obvious problem: where is the root, or the fundamental source of logic? If we posit that the fundamental source of logic can not be an a priori assumption (which would be highly un-scientific), the two possible scenarios would be a cycle, or "turtles all the way down". Thus, science requires either circular logic to be consistent with itself, implying that there is no way to prove it is consistent with reality, or it requires an infinite body of knowledge, which is not possible. I'm not knocking the value of scientific investigation here, it just seems that if we define "fundamental source of knowledge" the way Abubu seems to mean it, the entire foundation on which science rests can't be fundamental.

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.

[Peterski]

For example, I know that unicorns are true, because I have solid evidence that they existed as recently as 26,000 - 29,000 years ago (which implies that unicorns were contemporary with anatomically modern humans, had contact with humans - and probably humans caused their extinction):

http://s28.postimg.org/hgs90usst/Unicorn.png



More:

http://thescipub.com/abstract/10.384...p.2016.189.199

we found the remains of Elasmotherium sibiricum, Mammuthus ex gr. trogontherii-chosaricus, Mammuthus primigenius, Bison sp. AMS Radiocarbon dating of the Elasmotherium skull gave a young age-26038±356 BP (UBA-30522). The skull of Elasmotherium sibiricum exceeds in size the skull of the mammals from Eastern Europe. The lower jaw of the elephant, considering the size and the morphology of the last dentition teeth, is very close to that of Mammuthus trogontherii chosaricus.

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-fossil...lived-on-earth

For decades, scientists have estimated that the Siberian unicorn - a long-extinct species of mammal that looked more like a rhino than a horse - died out some 350,000 years ago, but a beautifully preserved skull found in Kazakhstan has completely overturned that assumption. Turns out, these incredible creatures were still around as recently as 29,000 years ago.

Before we talk about the latest discovery, yes, there was a very real 'unicorn' that roamed Earth tens of thousands of years ago, but it was nothing like the one found in your favourite children’s book. (Sorry - it’s a bummer for us, too.) The real unicorn, Elasmotherium sibiricum, was shaggy and huge and looked just like a modern rhino, only it carried the most almighty horn on its forehead.

Depiction of a unicorn from Harappa (Indus Valley Civilization):

https://www.harappa.com/sites/defaul...slides/1_5.jpg

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Where did I write this guy's name (wrongly)? What's funny is that you seem to assume, even to the point of making things up out of nothing, that I am on the same level of American intellectual vulgarity as you and Petros Agapetos.

In the post you wrote where you wrote Lariva. Remember you're a Christian and lying is a sin. Did you go back and change it? I have a very good memory and I recall thinking... "Lariva....? Who is that? And I just happen to remember the very obscure author. The chances it would hit me was a million to one, really. You have this tendency to reference very obscure religious hacks. You're a religious hipster.

[Herr Abubu]

The unicorn argument is loaded and something only amateur atheist fools make. The existence of unicorns or tea pots in outer space circling Saturn or whatever it was that charlatan Bertrand Russell talked about is in no way a question similar to the existence of God, Platonic forms, mathematical truth, etc. Only someone quite idiotic would think so. It assumes, and begs the question of a philosophical position, that every question is an empirical one.

[Peterski]

Except that unicorns did exist. They just resembled rhinos more than horses.

But if you take a look at Harappan artworks showing unicorns, they also look more like rhinos.

Our legends about unicorns are distant memories of interactions between prehistoric humans and unicorns (Elasmotherium). Until recently it was thought that Elasmotherium got extinct 350,000 years ago, but now we have evidence that these creatures survived long enough to have contact with modern humans.