Is the scientific method the only way to acquire knowledge?

Knowledge without experience is fundamentally useless.
Ya just gotta stick your hand in the fire to understand “hot”.

Knowledge can be acquired in all sorts of ways not solely by the scientific method, which after all is a creation of recent times.

It is a good way.

That would be terribly unfortunate.

Definitely not. It’s a way to test your knowledge, though.

Edit: Oops, I forgot to answer the second part of the question. I think it depends on what kind of knowledge you’re talking about. For acquiring knowledge about the natural world and its laws, I do believe science is the best tool. For acquiring knowledge about human nature, experience is probably the best tool.

@augustlan said it best. :-)

1: Not the only way, but one of the best ways. It’s the only way to gain knowledge about certain things. For example mathematics doesn’t use the scientific method, it’s pure logic and reason, but it’s conclusions are no less valid. I can’t think of any tool other than science that could tell us about, for example, the duality of light (it behaves as both a particle and a wave) as with the double-slit experiment. That’s not the kind of thing you just happen upon, without using the scientific method.

2: The scientific method only deals with testing falsifiable hypothesis, everything else is outside it’s scope. Philosophy/logic/reason are the tools for developing a morally sound civilization, but these need to be informed by Science.

It must first be understood exactly what knowledge is.

“Knowledge is the present understanding of the singular All”

Take note that it is a singularity, it would then mean having more or less means nothing unless one has knowledge in its entirety.

Where there is part knowledge, that which is unknown will be more important that that which is known, and ultimately it will take pre-eminence.

IE what is death?

Science is within the realm of partial knowledge, and it is neither better nor worst than any other partial knowledge. But it will be damaging to anyone who believes it has to potential to answer All.

Scientific method is the only reliable way of determining the truth of a hypothesis. That leaves open how hypotheses are arrived at. The determination of what should be tested is very much a human endeavor. Hypotheses can be arrived at by observation or sudden inspiration.

Once a determination is made of what should be tested, scientific method dictates that everything possible should be done to refute the hypothesis. You set up controls, for example, to keep extraneous factors from making a difference. When you are convinced that the hypothesis has been thoroughly tested, you publish the results, so that others can test the hypothesis. If it still holds up then it is tentatively accepted. It seems very common sensical to me. If you have a better method, the world would be eager to hear about it.

The second question is a different sort. You can’t derive morality from science. The best you can do is to use science to try to determine as accurately as you can, what the consequences are for any decision. Beyond that, scientific method is of no use.

No, the scientific method is not the only way to acquire knowledge, but it is the only way to acquire reliable, verifiable and important knowledge about the natural world.

This implies that much acquired knowledge is rather worthless. Theology as a discipline for instance.

Sub-Question 1
The scientific method is certainly not the only way to acquire knowledge, Throughout most of human history, what knowledge we acquired we acquired entirely without the scientific method, because it simply wasn’t around to use. It’s also true that we still learn to talk, to walk, to laugh, to fell empathy for others (at least is we’re fortunate enough not to be a psychopath) and a host of other things before we learn what the scientific method. Further, even being a top scientist, tasting a perfectly cooked Chateaubriand is a a far better way to acquire the knowledge of its taste than concocting some experiment and submitting a paper to a peer reviewed journal.

The scientific method is just an incredibly powerful tool for use in exploring how things work. As @LostInParadise notes, it’s the tool of choice for testing an hypothesis. For that task, there is no better tool known to man. We humans are hardwired to see associations and to ignore the truism that correlation does not equal causation. The scientific method short circuits that hard wiring.

Sub-Question 2
Yes, a world where we all accept that the scientific method produces the most verifiable, workable truths will be a more moral world than one in which this group believes this theological absolutism without any evidence it is true, that group believes a completely separate one without any evidence it is true, and each believes it is their moral duty to convert if they can and kill if they cannot convert all those who believe differently.

Try finding a scientific answer for: Is my life meaningful?

Or how about this:

Use the scientific method to answer the question “Is the scientific method the only way to acquire knowledge?”

Good luck.

The answer is a bit like trying to write computer programs to check computer programs for endless loops.

@Coloma Your point reminds me of the knowledge argument, also known as the Mary’s Room Paradox. Mary was a super scientist (hypothetically) who lived a life without experiencing color, and had all the analytical data and means to understand the mechanics behind color, but never actually perceived color with her own senses.

@ETpro “correlation does not equal causation.” I’ve lost count of how many times I had to remind skeptics of that point when making my arguments for the filter hypothesis of the brain. It’s not just theists and nonskeptics who are offenders of that argument.

Your answer to my second question (thanks for actually addressing it) is the only one so far which has said ‘yes’. Your response seems sensible for obvious reasons, and sounds similar to what a few scientists such as Richard Dawkins hinted. I’m thinking that I may want to tread lightly on that one.

For one, I think that one would be foolish to believe that science doesn’t have political overtones and special interests involved. I actually don’t think there’s anything wrong with science in itself, and I don’t believe it’s even possible for any entity, phenomena and anything of the mind to be ‘outside’ of science. Science vs people involved in the sciences who with themselves can bring their own bias, fallability and special interests. Ultimately our knowledge of phenomena using science as a tool is dependent upon the latter types of people.

My point here being is that not all scientific discoveries may be morally sound. I could use eugenics as an example. At one time eugenics was a very popular and respected branch of science, and not just in Nazi Germany either. Whether eugenics became unpopular due to earning the pseudoscience label, or due to political incorrectness, supports one of my major arguments though: What if eugenics did indeed verify the Nazi agenda? Don’t you think that the scientific method, without some sort of philosophical or spiritual guidance, can be a dangerous tool in its own right?

@Paradox25 I would not dare suggest that scientist are somehow immune from confirmation bias. We see if in scientific papers all the time. You mention eugenics, and this was a particularly egregious misuse of real science. But unlike blind faith, science, because of the use of the scientific method, is automatically self correcting. The same cannot be said of religion. The Easter Islanders are perhaps the best know example. Convinced that their God required that they erect giant stone Mori in worship of their deity, they cut down all trees on Easter Island to use them as rollers to move their massive stone monoliths from the quarry to their position, set in deep holes on the island’s hillsides, looking out to sea. But when all the trees were gone, this race that relied on seafood could no longer build boats to go to dea and fish. They starved to death thanks to their devout worship. No self correction is possible when a belief is absolute and unquestionable.

On the other hand, science is nothing if not questioning. A postulate must be testable via experiments before it can even be considered by serious scientists. When a postulate seems to pay out experimentally, it must be published in peer reviewed journals. A peer reviewed journal is science talk for a publication where scientist all around the world look for flaws in the methods or interpretations of results in the experiments. The experiments must be repeatable all around the world, even when conducted by competing scientists intent on proving the author wrong. If the experimental data published is widely replicated, then science moves on to predicting as yet unknown things that MUST be true if the postulate is correct. Experiments are set up to test if the postulate’s necessary predictions are also true. Only if they are to an amazingly high degree of confidence does a postulate become a true theory. I’d note in closing that eugenics did not survive that test.

@ETpro I have nothing against science, for how could I? I don’t even think it’s possible for anything to be outside of science. However, after looking at all of the peer reviewed journals that I possess which seem to overwhelmingly validate a good deal of the anomalous phenomena that I debate on here such as telepathy, mediumship, various types of energy healing, etc, and yet listening to people tell me that a magician’s challenge is more valid than the protocols used by real scientists it does make me wonder about the true intentions of many within the scientific community.

I brought up the above to show how bias is still rampant among those within the scientific community, and that I’m not attacking science (which simply means knowledge). Personally I’m glad there’s variation within the scientific community on various issues, or we would still be trapped in the confines of a 150 year old null mindset yet.

I understand what you’re saying about the scientific method, but the scientific method is just a tool, not a philosophy, though maybe one could label scientism as a sort of philosophy. What if through the scientific method we would discover unethical things? Just for sake’s sake what if it was found that other races were inferior to caucasions, or that homosexuality does not exist due to biological reasons? I can think of quite a few other scenerios, and even some potentially future implications where the scientific method, without some form of moral guidance or principles, can be a dangerous tool to rely upon by itself.

@Paradox25 It’s important to bear in mind that peer-reviewed journals are only as good as the peers who are reviewing the articles. There are major scientific journals which are held in very high regard (Science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_(journal), JAMA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAMA_(journal), etc.). These journals are incredibly rigorous with their peer review process and fiercely protective of their reputations for excellent quality scientific studies.

Conversely, we could start our own peer-reviewed “Journal of Fluther”, but the quality would be pretty abysmal compared to the leading scientific journals. Some groups have begun to exploit this concept by attempting to validate bad science simply by creating their own journal and having a flawed peer-review process. For example, the creationist Discovery Institute has made their own ‘peer reviewed’ journal. This doesn’t mean that we now have to abandon the theory of evolution, simply that there is a group doing shitty “science” and not rigorously reviewing those experiments for methodological flaws.

As a result, not all “peer-reviewed” articles are of the same quality.

@Paradox25 I would add to what @gorillapaws noted that so far, mediumship, out of the body experiences, conversations with the dead and the like have failed utterly to predict as yet unknown facts that we can then go and test for and observe to be true. You will note that this is the last, most vital step in moving from postulate to theory; and this is why no spiritualist has yet collected the Randi (magician’s) prize.

James Randi is a sceptic precisely because he is a magician. He is intimately acquainted with how easy it is to fool other human beings into thinking they are seeing the supernatural at work when they are simply being hoodwinked. It’s also very possible for us to fool ourselves. We are hard wired by evolution to see cause and effect even were it actually does not exist.

@Paradox25 , Just out of curiosity, which peer review journals support the “anomalous phenomena” you refer to?

I think you will find of interest the results of a fourth grader’s science project related to touch therapy, which got written up in JAMA.
Story
JAMA article
Objections answered

@ETpro I’m starting to realize that debating these issues is counter-intuitive, since minds are already up, and we keep getting into the same arguments. @gorillapaws statements have verified what most on my side keep saying, that debating with overly skeptical people is little different than attempting to debate overly religious people. I’m a very skeptical person, so it took a great deal of effort for me to have the mindset that currently have.

We keep getting into this pattern of futility because:
1. Skeptic will state that they don’t accept the potential reality of some paranormal phenomena because they claim there’s no evidence.
2. When skeptic is presented with evidence, such as anecdotals and other methods not relying on the scientific method, the skeptic obviously won’t accept the latter because of course a phenomena needs to be observable and repeatable.
3. Skeptic is then given access to data from research performed under rigorous conditions, data that confirms that energy healing, telepathy, mediumship, etc showed results which were well above chance.
4. Skeptic doesn’t accept the evidence for some paranormal phenomena that passed the scientific protocol, and where the results were repeatable, because now they have another excuse, the people and protocols were unreliable. However, in all irony they hold the Randi challenge in higher regards than the protocols of real scientists.
5. The latter four steps will almost surely be repeated again in light of any new evidence.

I’ve repeatedly given you links to various research, and it appears that you keep ducking everything that I’m giving you just by your responses alone. You never commented on the material or the data, and have never even given me any indication that you even attempted to read the links that I’d provided, rather you just always end your posts with something pertaining to the Randi challenge.

I’m not going to exaggerate, it takes a great deal of time to do all of the research about anything related to the mind and the paranormal. It also takes a great deal of motivation, so if one’s interests are more into biology or particle physics, then obviously such a person will not have the interest or energy to look at the data in an objective light, and it’s very likely that they won’t even have ability or time to access decent material out there, or be able to seperate the reliable information from the shady.

Also, it’s difficult to obtain positive paranormal results because like various experiments have demonstrated, a positive mindset is vital to success, and mediums can have off days like anybody. Personally I feel this is one of the reasons why mediums fail some tests, but pass others, because a medium has to have at least a ‘feel’ for the sitter to obtain useful readings. The fact that I was able to provide skeptics with data which did verify that the scientific method obtained positive results, and of which were repeatable is amazing to me within itself considering the unpredictable nature of the phenomena in question here.

@gorillapaws You bring up fair points, but I have little reason to doubt the authenicity and integrety of the people behind many of the peer reviewed journals I’ve read. The papers that I’ve read concerning energy healing for example were conducted by well respected scientists, those considered pioneers in their respective fields, and these experiments were performed at very respected insitutions.

Many skeptics took part in these experimental procedures, and the protocols taken to prevent fraud, and to eliminate other explainations were immense. Why would I ditch real research from real scientists in place of Randi’s challenge, and why does it seem that many skeptics are willing to do so? The peer reviewed papers that I’ve posted on fluther are devoted to a certain phenomena, and they convey to the reader what occured through experimentation and observation.

This is much different than reading ‘peer reviewed journals’ from creationist institutions which do not directly address any single certain phenomena, but rather use these as an extension to propagate forward with a religious agenda which likely consists of cherry picking data to support an entire way of thinking.

@Paradox25 Looking back through this thread, I see no link to any research that proves paranormal phenomena. Is there some past thread where I gave your link short shrift? I do that at times due to time pressure. Point me to what you think is the best example to prove your point and I promise to give it a fair hearing.

@ETpro I’ve taken my own thread, in general, way off topic. I was hoping to get back to the issue of different ways of obtaining information or knowledge other than the scientific method, to which you’ve responded. Those links to peer reviewed journals were from another older thread of yours. I’d rather address this issue on that thread. My time on here in the upcoming weeks could become sporadic, so bear with me.

@Paradox25 Can’t do it tonight. The hour is late. And business pressure is high here to, so bear with me. But I’ll quit derailing this thread and follow up on the link above. Thanks, and fare thee well.