Quote:
Originally Posted by TimMason
I'm not sure what your argument is here. It seems as if you are saying that knowledge is either scientific, accidental, or intuitive. .....
The knowledge that the Australian desert dweller had of the land, of the seasons, of the animals (including humans) that lived upon it was rich, integrated, conceptualized quite as rigourously as scientific knowledge. ....
My arguments are close to those of Feyerabend, who argued that science was simply one way of knowing among many.....
But some scientists - Richard Dawkins would be an example - seem to go emeritus prematurely, and are then apt to make claims for "the scientific method" that it simply was not designed to carry. For one thing, there is no single 'scientific method'; the sciences may, as Wittgenstein might have put it, bear a family resemblance to one another, but do not lend themselves to one overarching and constraining definition. Meterology is other than particle physics, and both are other than psychology, which, in turn, should not really be confused with evolutionary biology.
Similarly, the sciences may enter into competition with myth - over questions such as the age of the earth, for example. But it does not replace it, or fulfill the same functions. As Winch concluded, talking about the Azande, there are other ways of knowing, which cannot be measured in the lab.
|
Umm.....I'm pretty much in extreme disagreement with most of this.
First there are not "different kinds of knowledge." Maybe you are defining knowledge different than me.
From
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/knowledge :
"2 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge> c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a person of unusual knowledge>"
I come back to what appears to be your confusing knowledge with the method of obtaining it. They are different things.
The thing a primitive tribesman knows (his knowledge) are obtained very much through interaction with his environment in quite often a scientific manner. Because of the way our minds and bodies work we apply this method without even realizing it. We formulate a hypothesis, we test it and if it give the results we want then we catalog it as knowledge to be used for the future. If the test fails we go back and try something else. Even babies do this. This is the core of the scientific method, this is logic and reasoning.
I don't know Feyerabend but as above there are not multiple kinds of knowledge, there may be multiple ways of obtaining knowledge (or what we believe is knowledge) but knowledge is knowledge. It is something know that we (believe) will help us in interacting with our environment.
There is only ONE scientific method. Again you seem to be confusing practice with theory. The Scientific method goes thus:
1. Create a falsifiable hypothesis based on experience or existing knowledge
2. Design a repeatable, replicable experiment to test the hypothesis
3. If the hypothesis passes the test (and is repeatable and replicable) it is deemed to be true and is now a theory describing the particular behavior or activity etc.
If the hypothesis fails the test then it's back to step 1.
Science and myth are not in competition. Myth is not knowledge, it is fiction. There may be elements of science at the basis of myth or there may not be.
Myth may be a way of communicating, but it is not and should not be considered knowledge per se.
It is very important to separate truth - scientific truth from fiction. Myth is fiction, science is truth as best we know it based on logic and reason.