An ID view of scientism (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, January 16, 2010, 21:29 (5424 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: What other forms of gaining knowledge are there? The only ones we can consider are the ones we know of. And on a case by case basis, how do they do what they do better than science?-It's difficult for me to answer you without directly repeating everything I said in my previous post, though you've almost answered your own question under "The Nature of this Conflict". Anyway, I'll try to approach it from a different angle. Let's take just one issue, since we both have difficulty with it: consciousness. As I see it, we have three options:-1) We adopt the quasi-religious faith of materialism, and believe that thought, memory, emotion etc. are explicable in material terms. Then unquestionably science will seem to be the only reliable method of acquiring knowledge about how they are produced. If our basic premise is false, we won't find the answers, but our faith will keep us hoping. 
 
2) We adopt the non-materialist faith, and believe in a soul. Science will cover the material aspects of consciousness (cerebral cortex, neurons, electrical impulses, etc.), and for the rest we will rely on personal or shared experiences. If our basic premise is false, we won't...etc. - or we may one day change our minds.-3) We adopt neither faith, but remain open to what we believe to be the reliable findings of science and to what we believe to be the reliable realities of personal experience (our own and other people's). We may or may not one day reach a conclusion.
 
Clearly, then, in response to your question, the other principal way of gaining knowledge that we know of is through experience. We use such knowledge all the time, and we share it with others just as they share it with us ... very often through books and other media. We can't live without it, but inevitably there's a process of subjective selection that goes on all the time, even in science (otherwise everyone would agree). If I tell you I nearly got drowned as a child (which I KNOW is true), you may well believe me. If someone tells you they KNOW they heard a voice which gave them information that later turned out to be true, you may well be sceptical. If a renowned climatologist publishes research data which he says he KNOWS is true, and for good measure lots of important people accept and act on it, you may well believe him. (And when news breaks that the data may have been falsified, you will feel cheated but may well find excuses for your lack of scepticism!) In all these cases, you're dealing with someone else's "knowledge", and you're imposing your own standards of credulity on it. -If we return to our starting point of consciousness, then, you can adopt either faith or neither and thus satisfy yourself, but the moment you discuss the issue with someone else, i.e. try to exchange "knowledge", you're confronted with the problem of your (and his) subjective criteria for selection. As you yourself put it when wearing your agnostic hat: "unless you can agree on what is valid evidence, there is no way to effectively implement the burden of proof issue on this topic." And since no-one can tell us what are or are not the correct criteria or the correct basic premises, no-one can tell us whether science or experience is the more reliable guide to the true nature of consciousness. Game, set and match to you, and exit your brother-in-law!