A Christian I met wrote to me later and wanted to discuss my lack of faith. He sent me some literature that suggested that there were good, logical reasons to accept that supernatural things might exist. If you want to follow his initial reasoning, check out “The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism” by C.S. Lewis.
I wrote back to explain why I thought Lewis’ reasoning was flawed. In his reply, the gentleman posted this curious statement.
“The fact science is very successful at providing reliable answers to scientific questions does not mean it is the best way to answer all questions. Certain questions are much better answered using other methods of inquiry. …. Of course the knowledge acquired in other ways wouldn’t be scientific knowledge, but it would still be knowledge. The degree to which it is “reliable” or “objective” would of course vary depending upon the methods used to acquire the knowledge and the degree to which it is submitted to critical analysis and allowed to change in light of the evidence.”
I know he was trying to make the point that science is too limiting a tool—condemning my over-reliance on science to the exclusion of everything else. “Scientism,” I think he called it. This is what I meant yesterday when I wrote that some people consider science a bully that won’t let us experience the whole range of truths available.
I spent several months writing back and forth with the man, and I often asked him to explain in what other ways knowledge could be acquired (besides science). Above, he says explicitly that for certain question there are much better methods of inquiry. Despite my prodding and despite his insistence that the supernatural exists, he never could tell me what they are.
It is interesting to note the last part of his statement. See how he admits that the reliability of this “knowledge” depends on how much analysis it can withstand, and how much evidence it can recruit in its support. Isn’t that science?
Feynman says that science is to doubt the information passed down to us. I think it reasonable to also question beliefs we have acquired on our own. If we do that, everything is science.
I’d still like to know what these other “non-scientific” sources of knowledge might be. If we can question them, examine them and hold them up to evidence, then they can be considered scientific. If not, how can we call them knowledge?
Anyone care to explain?