Is science "a way" or "the way" to know truth? ?

Question

Is objective scientific truth, as discovered through the scientific method, "a way" among many ways, of discovering truth? Is it the best way? The only way?

In watching a documentary, a teacher defends his tip-toeing around not teaching evolution by saying, "It's not our place to fly the banner of science and say there's no room for anything else. All we can do is present science. This is "a way" of thinking. This is one way of interpreting life."

Do you agree?

What ramifications are there for a culture if all ways of "interpreting life" are equally valid?

Answer 1

Science is merely an extension of reason. There are alternatives to rational thought. We call them irrational thought.  

Answer 2

Science is definately "a" way of knowing about things.We can't use science to know that science is the "the" way. Scientific reasoning is founded in philosophy (especially epistemology). After all, we cannot use science to decide when we have sufficient evidence to "know" something, that is a personal judgment. Statements that claim that science is the best method because it has produced results is not scientific, it is philosophical.  

There is no objective way to establish what constitutes such sufficient evidence for knowledge. This is why there can be controversy within the scientific world; two different scientists can draw different conclusions from the same date. There may be some objective scientific observations, but there cannot be any completely objective conclusions since we all have different criteria for establishing "truth".

The teacher in the documentary, however, is hypocritical. By not teaching evolution the teacher is failing to present science and allowing the students to make up their own minds about where truth is.  

Answer 3

What a question...

Science is a way of discovering what is around us, and what causes things to happen. I guess this could be considered finding "truth" depending on your standpoint. Of course it is not the only way. You don't need science to discover a truth that glass breaks when it's hit, but you CAN use science to discover WHY.

And yes, I agree we can only present science. We don't have one big truth. Nobody has one big truth to base ANYTHING off of. We have no reference points for "truth" except what we came up with ourselves. I mean, everything that has been proven "correct" could all be just one giant coincidence.

Answer 4

Science is based on evidence as evidence changes so does the viewpoint so you might call science the quest for answers. Richard Dawkins does make good documentaries I watched it as well. It showed the stupidity of the education system and shows why most great minds fail within it one alarming point was how children's minds are ruined from a young age with religion  

Answer 5

It is definitely a way to determine what reality really is.  

Is it the only way?  As a scientist, I can't answer with an absolute, but no other method has produced anywhere near the results science has.

Answer 6

it is the best way humans have found to determine the facts about the natural universe.

If there is any "truth" its this: that humans make mistakes, and that we are very bad at catching them.

The virtue of the scientific method is that we can correct our mistakes by constantly checking them against physical reality, and throwing out our wrong ideas when they are proved to be wrong.

No other "way" of determining 'truth' has yet figured out as good way of throwing out errors.

Answer 7

Science is the only way to know the truth about our world, existence. The science must be logically sound. Aristotle's logic. What other way is there? Faith, divine revolution etc.... Anything outside of existence that mystics claim is beyond the reach of science is beyond the reach of humans and is not truth. It has never and can never be proven, the creators of such worlds made sure of that.

This teacher who tip toes around evolution just as well should have said that he does not want to teach what is known, what is truth. He should have said that i can interpret TRUTH anyway i want, deny or accept it, then teach how to deny or evade. I can make up anything i want in my mind, have it be protected from reason since no logic can touch on something outside the reach of humans, and claim it as truth.

Answer 8

I agree that science is *the* way to objective, rational observation of the world.  There are some questions better left to philosophy, but when it comes to the natural world, science is the way to go.  I wouldn't go so far as to call it truth, since our understanding of the world gets reexamined and refined with every new discovery, but it is certainly a path to that end.

I cringe every time I hear about teachers "tiptoeing" around evolution, primarily because they are watering down education in order to avoid offending certain vocal (and insecure) religious groups.  Should we avoid the topic of the n***s so as not to offend the Holocaust deniers?  Should we skip over the biology lesson in vaccines because the science disagrees with certain celebrities' "mommy instincts" and their followers?  Who must we bend over backwards for, and to what extent to avoid imagined offense?

I think there is another important distinction between science-based and religion-based truths.  Namely, that religion is a consensus accepted my many, while science is a consensus *created* by many.  In short, religious truth goes "accept what I say, and don't question it," while scientific truth thrives and is made stronger by questions and constant reexamination.  Take the evolution lessons, for example.  From where I stand, the vocal opposition to evolution seems to stem from insecurity - opposition implies that the very thought of evolution could destabilize their current beliefs and therefore must be silenced.  I think it's obvious as to where I feel that the real path to truth lies.

Answer 9

The Scientific Method brought us the First and Second Industrial Revolutions.  It will never be known for sure whether it might have been an early application of the Scientific Method that brought us the Agricultural Revolution  (or Zeroth Industrial Revolution),  although there is one school of thought that states humans were growing plants to get high on long before they started growing plants to eat.

If you reject the Scientific Method, then it is only logical that you should reject everything that it has brought humanity and live the pre-Revolutionary lifestyle of the Altordnung Amish, if not a full-on stone-age lifestyle.