A Discussion of Epistemology.

[Stefan]

My room-mate and I, as students in science, have had many conversations about the matter of epistemology. Due to our somewhat bias, it was concluded firstly that the only useful knowledge is that gained through the scientific method. However, upon a debate of theology(which my roommate and I both view as irrelevant to gaining knowledge) and its usefulness in determining understanding in relation to humanism(which my roommate subscribes to, but I disagree with) and its usefulness in gaining understanding it was concluded that some un-scientific philosophies can be useful in gaining knowledge, or are more accurate in describing our world than others. As both humanism and almost any theism can be labeled as philosophies which propose knowledge of the natural world through means that are unscientific; however, it is hard to say that both are entirely fallacious in regards to describing nature.

This has inspired me to create a thread to seek the opinions of Apricians, whom I find to be knowledgeable.

- Can certain pseudo-sciences and non-sciences be more valuable than others for obtaining knowledge of our world, including all of its constituents: humanity, life, physical phenomena, etc?

- Can a philosophy, such as meta-physics, surpass science(meaning the scientific method) in its ability to (or accuracy in) explain(ing) the natural world? (assuming rightfully that science has its limitations in this regard.)

[Svipdag]

Ontology, Epistemology, and Cosmology are the constituent disciplines of Metaphysics. It is Metaphysics, i.e. " beyond physics", which provides the context of physics.

The "scientific method" is epistemological in nature. It provides a logical procedure for the investigation of natural phenomena and their relationships. The logic, however, is inductive and, although they give lip-service to it, some scientists fail to bear in mind that no conclusion arrived at inductively carries any guarantee of its validity.

(The conclusions of deductive reasoning, of which mathematics is a classic example, are, if the rules were followed, inevitably valid inasmuch as every syllogism is a tautology.)

Epistemology enables one to critique the reasoning and the applicability of the investigative techniques employed but does not prevent one from reasoning validly about non-existent "entities."
Some of the more preposterous speculations of modern physics are an example of this.

A method alone is inadequate to prevent one from producing nonsense. Most scientists are woefully ignorant of ontology. Physicists, especially, are prone to investigating the behavior of things without knowing what they ARE. Indeed, the most fundamental concepts of physics are inadequately defined or undefined.

Many physical definitions are "that which" definitions which tell us what something DOES, not what it IS. What is matter ? (There can hardly be anything much more fundamental than that.) "That which occupies space and has mass", a "can of worms" if ever there were one.

"Space" is a geometrical concept and it can have only geometrical properties. Yet, some modern physicists tell us that space, which they cannot define, can spontaneously change into matter, which also they cannot define. Knowing nothing of ontology, they are blissfully unaware that they are talking nonsense.

What is mass ? Newton said "quantitas materiae", quantity of matter. So, matter has quantity of matter ? That is no help. Mass is now defined as "the quantitative measure of inertia" (Inertia being resistance to a change in the state of motion.) That makes for a better definition, but only because physicists do not ask "WHY and HOW does matter resist a change in its motion ? It just does, that's all
.
Well, it's NOT all ! But they would never admit that they don't know. I could go on and on about things of which physicists know what they DO but not what they ARE, such as electricity.

The "scientific method" enables them to be certain that their
methodology is valid but it applies only to the behavior of matter and energy, not to their nature.

Epistemology is an empty intellectual exercise without ontology. The meaning of science is lost unless it is placed in its metaphysical context.


"INTELLEGO VT CREDAM"