3 ms·

I think it applies specially to scientific knowledge. There is a connexion there between Gödel and Popper. Except inside a formal system, you can never prove

I think it applies specially to scientific knowledge. There is a connexion there between Gödel and Popper. Except inside a formal system, you can never prove that something is true, only that one explanation is better than other in an endless pursue of better explanations. I'm not sure there is such thing as not-scientific knowledge, by the way.

mirimir 9y ago
Right, Popper. I guess that's why they were adjacent on my university reading list ;) But I don't think of that as an expression of limitations in hypotheses as formal systems. Because you don't reject an hypothesis (or not) through logic and reasoning. You do that through observation and experiment. So it's rather a fundamental limitation in the scientific method. Anyway, I get that they're similar. But I don't see them as the same, but rather complementary. I also get what you say about knowledge. Scientific knowledge is what you get by studying external reality. But there is also knowledge that you get through introspection.
dwaltrip 9y ago
> I'm not sure there is such thing as not-scientific knowledge, by the way. I'm fully on-board with the overwhelming, world-changing effectiveness that the scientific method provides for distilling factual, empirical knowledge and truth. Lately, however, I've been contemplating forms of knowledge and understanding that are more difficult to assess and validate -- things that might be typically described as wisdom or keen insight. Our scientific instruments can't provide observations that let us robustly verify such knowledge, but to me it seems very evident that it exists. Some examples: What is important to building and maintaining strong relationships? How can one prepare for and handle personal hardship? If one finds themselves in a fortunate position with excess resources, what are good ways to use those resources to help others? Science can help us with these questions, but humans have useful knowledge to bring to bear in answering those questions that can't be yet described within the framework of science. Differentiating by quality or truthiness is ridiculously hard in such domains, but I don't think that is a valid reason for dismissing such things altogether.
- mirimir 9y ago
  Yes, that's what I was getting at. Insight, wisdom, etc. Even so, one can also apply the scientific method to those sorts of knowledge. One can look at performance. Quality of relationships. Success at dealing with hardship. That's part of psychology. But it hasn't received enough attention, I think.

mirimir 9y ago

Right, Popper. I guess that's why they were adjacent on my university reading list ;) But I don't think of that as an expression of limitations in hypotheses as formal systems. Because you don't reject an hypothesis (or not) through logic and reasoning. You do that through observation and experiment. So it's rather a fundamental limitation in the scientific method. Anyway, I get that they're similar. But I don't see them as the same, but rather complementary. I also get what you say about knowledge. Scientific knowledge is what you get by studying external reality. But there is also knowledge that you get through introspection.

dwaltrip 9y ago

> I'm not sure there is such thing as not-scientific knowledge, by the way. I'm fully on-board with the overwhelming, world-changing effectiveness that the scientific method provides for distilling factual, empirical knowledge and truth. Lately, however, I've been contemplating forms of knowledge and understanding that are more difficult to assess and validate -- things that might be typically described as wisdom or keen insight. Our scientific instruments can't provide observations that let us robustly verify such knowledge, but to me it seems very evident that it exists. Some examples: What is important to building and maintaining strong relationships? How can one prepare for and handle personal hardship? If one finds themselves in a fortunate position with excess resources, what are good ways to use those resources to help others? Science can help us with these questions, but humans have useful knowledge to bring to bear in answering those questions that can't be yet described within the framework of science. Differentiating by quality or truthiness is ridiculously hard in such domains, but I don't think that is a valid reason for dismissing such things altogether.

mirimir 9y ago
Yes, that's what I was getting at. Insight, wisdom, etc. Even so, one can also apply the scientific method to those sorts of knowledge. One can look at performance. Quality of relationships. Success at dealing with hardship. That's part of psychology. But it hasn't received enough attention, I think.