Comment on Why is science better than the alternative? (And what is that alternative, exactly?)

• Mugmoor@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Your intentions may be good, but you’re going about it the completely wrong way. You’ve been given several answers but you refuse to accept them. My gut says you aren’t trolling, but this is what trolls do.

  source

  • froghorse@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Possibly. Or maybe it’s you.

    You could try just answering the question.

    What exactly does science do?

    source

    • Mugmoor@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Thank you for proving that you are in fact, just a troll.

      source

      • froghorse@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        For a fellow with such strong opinions about the subject you certainly don’t know your subject. Think on that.

        source
• BitSound@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  How did that authoritative source get their knowledge? If it wasn’t through the scientific method, then it’s not knowledge. So you can proxy your knowledge through someone else you trust that did the legwork of going through the scientific process, but that’s not another way of obtaining knowledge, it’s just the scientific process with extra steps.

  Personal experience can also result in knowledge, through the use of the scientific method. You can drop an apple and see that it falls. That’s the observation part of the scientific method. You can go further and try to figure out why that happens, by using the scientific method yourself based on your personal observations of the apple.

  There really isn’t another way. It’s the scientific method all the way down.

  source
• BURN@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  There’s no such thing as an authoritative source on the natural order of the world. Personal experience is liable to confirmation bias and inconsistencies.

  source