argument top image

Where does knowledge come from? Show more Show less
Back to question

Where does knowledge come from. Does knowledge emerge from data? Or is rationalist thought the origin of knowledge? Might knowledge be a gift from god? Or is true knowledge even possible?

Knowledge can only be gained through empirical data Show more Show less

The scientific method and other methods of empirical study are how we can learn about the world around us
(1 of 4) Next position >

Knowledge can be gained through the scientific method

Constructing hypotheses, conducting experiments, and collecting and evaluating data are the best and most accurate methods to gaining knowledge.

The Argument

The scientific method is the most accurate and correct path to gaining knowledge. The type of evidence scientists use to answer questions is objective and quantifiable. Quantifiable evidence is concrete and less prone to multiple interpretations. The evidence and answers emerging from the scientific method are closer to gaining true knowledge than other methods. Scientists evaluate alternate results and explanations with mathematics and logic, which is more reliable compared to other methods of evaluating knowledge, such as anecdotal evidence or hearsay. The scientific method has multiple objective tools through which it evaluates the quality of the answers in terms of accuracy and precision and is better at identifying the more likely answers. Overall, the scientific method makes knowledge possible and closer to the truth than other methods.[1]

Counter arguments

The scientific method cannot sufficiently describe the complex universe. The scientific method is a form of reductionism. Reductionism attempts to describe a complex system by reducing it to its simpler parts that make the system (ex. reducing emotion to physics and chemistry). The Antiscience view rejects reductionism in science as a sufficient way to describe the complex universe because the basic scientific principles have not reached the point where they can fully describe complex phenomena in the world like emotions. Empirical data alone cannot be a source of knowledge since there are many phenomena which the data cannot explain. [2] The scientific method is not more special or accurate than other methods of knowledge. From a sociological perspective, scientists can never be fully pure from bias. Bias leads to subjectivity and interferes with the objective goals of science. From a religious perspective, the scientific method contradicts religious beliefs and traditions. Many people still rely on knowledge from religious beliefs like theories on the origin of life and humanity. Due to potential interfering biases and contradictions with religious beliefs, knowledge cannot be gained through the scientific method. [3]

Proponents

Framing

The argument assumes that scientists follow the scientific method without bias in their research. It also assumes that publishers are unbiased on what to approve for publishing in journals. The scientific method is systematic and data-oriented and needs to be as free as possible from social and political biases and pressures. [4]

Premises

Rejecting the premises

References

  1. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mk8oSTk78oQC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=info:G3yMT2zqf9kJ:scholar.google.com&ots=XBRRnLu9qv&sig=F5u0zfpwDTxwSwpHjP--c_rvxvs#v=onepage&q&f=false
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism#cite_note-Nagel-7
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience
  4. https://youtu.be/YwrjHMKieXE

Vote

Not sure yet? Read more ↑

Discuss

This page was last edited on Sunday, 13 Sep 2020 at 17:16 UTC

Explore related arguments