The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE

[arthwollipot]

-Is there knowledge outside of science?
-This and that.
-But they're not science!

Are we discussing what science is, or are we discussing whether some kind of knowledge can exist outside of science?

We're discussing whether there are tools that are useful for discerning facts about the world that are not science. Logic and mathematics, while related, are two such tools. Common sense is not, because common sense is unreliable. Common sense would tell me that the world is flat. Art does not discern new facts about the universe, it merely draws attention to existing ones. And philosophy? Ah...

Then we come to philosophy. That's certainly a grey area. Personally, I have very little patience with it.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Do you mean that nothing was discovered about astronomy or physics before Galileo started doing experiments? This doesn't make much sense. The Sumerians knew a lot about eclipses and didn't experiment with planets. Primitive cultures know quite a bit about the healing power of certain plants and do not have laboratories with guinea pigs.

Excellent case examples. Are all these observations of correlation without a materialistic causal explanation behind them?

 

[RedStapler]

Primitive cultures know quite a bit about the healing power of certain plants and do not have laboratories with guinea pigs.

And they gained this knowledge by doing philosophy? Like, they discussed the healing power of the plant?

Nope, they used science.

 

[David Mo]

Yes, I was disagreeing with the other poster that Aristotle was doing philosophy when he was talking about facts about cosmology and physics.

I think it is a mistake to talk about Aristotle in this debate. Aristotle is a part of the history of philosophy and as such should be studied from the 21st century.

When Einstein is inspired by Hume or Heisenberg in Plato, it does not mean that they are one hundred percent valid, but that their way of seeing the universe inspired them. It is not the same.

People who are not interested in philosophy should not be told about Aristotle but about today's philosophy.

 

[David Mo]

And they gained this knowledge by doing philosophy? Like, they discussed the healing power of the plant?

Nope, they used science.

That is not science, but another form of knowledge. It does not have the social structure of science or the methods of knowledge of what is understood by modern science. Of course, if we assimilate into science any knowledge of something that is vaguely based on observation, there is no knowledge outside of science. Even alchemy would be science. But that's making a trick with words.
It is usually said that science should learn from ancient wisdom because it is understood that they are two different things.
What do you mean when you talk about science?

 

[Sideroxylon]

And they gained this knowledge by doing philosophy? Like, they discussed the healing power of the plant?

Nope, they used science.

Wouldn’t consider that philosophy. As per my questions above I think we need some sort of attempts at theory to be talking about natural philosophy/science.

In the same vein shotgun attempts at technological solutions by Edison with globe filament material or Midgley Jr for an anti-knocking additive don’t qualify either.

 

[David Mo]

Common sense is not, because common sense is unreliable. Common sense would tell me that the world is flat.

When the child learns that fire burns, it is unreliable knowledge? I'd say it's pretty safe. We're not posing the contradiction between science and common sense when that happens. We're asking if common sense can give knowledge of things. And clearly it can.

 

[David Mo]

Excellent case examples. Are all these observations of correlation without a materialistic causal explanation behind them?

I do not know if the Sumerians relied on a correlation without a materialistic causal explanation. In any case, I can assure you that they did not use the hypothetical-deductive method like current science.

 

[arthwollipot]

When the child learns that fire burns, it is unreliable knowledge? I'd say it's pretty safe. We're not posing the contradiction between science and common sense when that happens. We're asking if common sense can give knowledge of things. And clearly it can.

There's degrees of reliability in knowledge. Common sense does not control the reliability of the information it gives you - it's equally likely to tell you that fire burns as it is to tell you that brown cows give you chocolate milk.

 

[David Mo]

Then we come to philosophy. That's certainly a grey area. Personally, I have very little patience with it.

You are right. You have to have a lot of patience with philosophers. Many of them love their particular jargon and are difficult to understand. But sometimes, and with some of them, it pays to be patient. They help you see things from a non-routine perspective. And that's also a form of knowledge.

 

[David Mo]

There's degrees of reliability in knowledge. Common sense does not control the reliability of the information it gives you - it's equally likely to tell you that fire burns as it is to tell you that brown cows give you chocolate milk.

But I'm not saying that science isn't the surest form of knowledge. I am saying that there are other forms of knowledge that are useful when they do not conflict with science.

 

[RedStapler]

That is not science, but another form of knowledge.

Weasel words noted

It does not have the social structure of science or the methods of knowledge of what is understood by modern science.

Irrelevant. To find out if a plant has healing properties, you try different things with it aka experimenting. The fact that you even try to bring in "no science because not like modern science" is very telling.

 

[arthwollipot]

But I'm not saying that science isn't the surest form of knowledge. I am saying that there are other forms of knowledge that are useful when they do not conflict with science.

At what point does a child touching a hot surface become an experiment?

There isn't a hard demarcation between science and non science, or even between science and (dog help us) philosophy. But we can certainly agree that science is the most reliable source of knowledge about the universe. So at this point I'm inclined to leave it at that.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Parrots that ingest clay prior to eating berries that would otherwise poison them are scientists.

 

[David Mo]

Irrelevant. To find out if a plant has healing properties, you try different things with it aka experimenting. The fact that you even try to bring in "no science because not like modern science" is very telling.

Primitive people didn't do experiments. The scientific experiment assumes a hypothesis, a deductive device, a mathematical quantification and an exact prediction that is fulfilled under conditions that can be altered. None of this exists in ancient wisdom.
It seems to me that you have such a broad concept of science that anything that works is called science. So you can't go wrong, of course.

You have been avoiding saying what you mean by science. Now the time has come when you are obliged to tell us what you understand by science. Otherwise there can be no sensible discussion.

 

[arthwollipot]

Parrots that ingest clay prior to eating berries that would otherwise poison them are scientists.

The question is - does each parrot have to work this out for themselves, or can they pass this knowledge between them?

 

[David Mo]

At what point does a child touching a hot surface become an experiment?

In any case, it is not a scientific experiment.

 

[David Mo]

Parrots that ingest clay prior to eating berries that would otherwise poison them are scientists.

It's just that parrots are scientists, too, and they don't know it.

 

[RedStapler]

Primitive people didn't do experiments. The scientific experiment assumes a hypothesis, a deductive device, a mathematical quantification and an exact prediction that is fulfilled under conditions that can be altered. None of this exists in ancient wisdom.

And yet, the testing of a plant for healing powers is nothing else but an experiment. Your strange "it's not science because in ancient times they did not do it like today" is extremely dishonest and of course totally irrelevant. Your discussion style is what I would expect from a small child.

It seems to me that you have such a broad concept of science that anything that works is called science. So you can't go wrong, of course.

It seems to me your concept of science changes by the second. So you can't go wrong, of course.

You have been avoiding saying what you mean by science. Now the time has come when you are obliged to tell us what you understand by science. Otherwise there can be no sensible discussion.

Ah, setting up the No true scotsman fallacy.

 

[Sideroxylon]

The question is - does each parrot have to work this out for themselves, or can they pass this knowledge between them?

If I have to guess, I will say this is observed learning. But there cases of complex behaviour that is encoded in DNA.

In any case I don’t want to call correlation discoveries devoid of transferable theoretical notions as science.