> Sounds great to me, can't think of a better way to go about learning things well enough that we can say we know them to an extent. > If not results from scie

> Sounds great to me, can't think of a better way to go about learning things well enough that we can say we know them to an extent. > If not results from scientific methods, then what's the alternative that should be trusted? I am not saying that there is a better way to obtain scientific knowledge than through science, what I am saying is that there are other modes of knowledge. For example: (1) Philosophy. This very discussion is of a philosophical nature. What is knowledge? What modes of knowledge are there? What is science? Why is science useful? What is usefulness? What are the limits of scientific knowledge, if they exist? None of these questions can be answered by application of the scientific method. In fact, the very idea of science is not a scientific theory. (2) First person experience. Science is about things that can be verified in the third person (measurements), but there are things that can only be experienced in the first person (qualia). Science has nothing to say about e.g. my direct experience of the color red. And is my experience of red the same of yours? Another question that cannot be answered by science (and that maybe cannot be answered at all). (3) Math. Mathematical proof is a way of obtaining knowledge that is not based on empiricism. > The part that's forgotten is that the body of scientific knowledge is constantly updated. They're merely the best answers we have at the moment, not final ones. Not forgotten at all, please re-read what I wrote originally.