Scientific Knowledge is the Most Credible & Trustworthy?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe [as evident] Scientific Knowledge* [in general] from the Scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] is the Most Credible & Trustworthy [along with Mathematics.]

If you agree, why and how?
If you do not agree, why?

• Btw, scientific knowledge like any other knowledge is not perfect nor absolutely certain but has its positives and negatives aspects.
  In the above case, I am netting all the positive and negatives and the resultant of scientific knowledge is a net-positive [benefits outweigh costs] which is more credible than other net-positive knowledge.

Note this re criteria for credibility;
viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338

[FlashDangerpants]

There's a thing that dull people do which is the assembly of lists of the top 5 sports cars, football players, or super funky albums*. Are you trying to assemble a tier list of knowledges?

It's purposeless to put Science in your S tier and historical knowledge on your B tier or whatever. The point of scientific method is strictly to answer questions of a scientific nature, and historical knowledge is for completely different stuff. You might as well insist on ranking a list of the best fruits out of Radish, Alka Seltzer, a cat that gave me a mean look one time, and Henry V (without confirming whether that's the king or the play)



* obviously the top spots go to: some sort of Ferrari, that Messi dude, and VivisectVI, and I will viciously slap anyone who dissents around the face and bottom with damp celery to punish your insolence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There's a thing that dull people do which is the assembly of lists of the top 5 sports cars, football players, or super funky albums*. Are you trying to assemble a tier list of knowledges?

It's purposeless to put Science in your S tier and historical knowledge on your B tier or whatever. The point of scientific method is strictly to answer questions of a scientific nature, and historical knowledge is for completely different stuff. You might as well insist on ranking a list of the best fruits out of Radish, Alka Seltzer, a cat that gave me a mean look one time, and Henry V (without confirming whether that's the king or the play)



* obviously the top spots go to: some sort of Ferrari, that Messi dude, and VivisectVI, and I will viciously slap anyone who dissents around the face and bottom with damp celery to punish your insolence.

Your thinking is too narrow & shallow minded.

My OP ask about credibility and trustworthiness of the knowledge in terms of its utility after a cost vs benefits analysis aim ultimately at the well being [basic survival] of the individual[s] and that of humanity.

Obviously knowledge about Ferrari & that Messi dude, your pant-flashing, etc. is less credible and has lesser utility [net] than what scientific knowledge [net of pros and cons] can contribute the well being [basic survival] of humanity.

[FlashDangerpants]

My OP ask about credibility and trustworthiness of the knowledge in terms of its utility after a cost vs benefits analysis aim ultimately at the well being [basic survival] of the individual[s] and that of humanity.

That's a severely tortured sentence, what is it that you are trying to say?

It makes little difference though, science kowledge is the best when you want to know a science thing, it's not terribly helpful when you want to answer a question about the true meaning of James Joyce's Ulysses.

If somebody attempts to use their knowledge of early 20th Century Irish literature to explain the orbit of a comet, I promise I will back you up when you tell them that science knowledge is very much more credible and trustworthy for that purpose. Otherwise, no, there's no value in the comparison.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My OP ask about credibility and trustworthiness of the knowledge in terms of its utility after a cost vs benefits analysis aim ultimately at the well being [basic survival] of the individual[s] and that of humanity.

That's a severely tortured sentence, what is it that you are trying to say?

It makes little difference though, science kowledge is the best when you want to know a science thing, it's not terribly helpful when you want to answer a question about the true meaning of James Joyce's Ulysses.

If somebody attempts to use their knowledge of early 20th Century Irish literature to explain the orbit of a comet, I promise I will back you up when you tell them that science knowledge is very much more credible and trustworthy for that purpose. Otherwise, no, there's no value in the comparison.

All faculty of knowledge somehow is linked to the betterment of the well being of the individual[s] and humanity.
If one know something it have various utility, e.g. it can bring enjoyment or knowledge for other purpose.
Historical knowledge is useful to know the past and avoid mistakes of the past thus has an effect of the well being to the individual[s] and humanity in the future.
It is the same with legal, economics, political, social, etc. knowledge.

My point in terms of the well-being of the individual[s] and humanity, science is the most credible and trustworthy of all other knowledge.

Point is, if that is the case what sort of FSK do we rely objectively upon to rate why scientific knowledge is more credible, trustworthy and useful than others?
I am not answering the above at present but awaiting the views of others.

[FlashDangerpants]

My OP ask about credibility and trustworthiness of the knowledge in terms of its utility after a cost vs benefits analysis aim ultimately at the well being [basic survival] of the individual[s] and that of humanity.

That's a severely tortured sentence, what is it that you are trying to say?

It makes little difference though, science kowledge is the best when you want to know a science thing, it's not terribly helpful when you want to answer a question about the true meaning of James Joyce's Ulysses.

If somebody attempts to use their knowledge of early 20th Century Irish literature to explain the orbit of a comet, I promise I will back you up when you tell them that science knowledge is very much more credible and trustworthy for that purpose. Otherwise, no, there's no value in the comparison.

All faculty of knowledge somehow is linked to the betterment of the well being of the individual[s] and humanity.
If one know something it have various utility, e.g. it can bring enjoyment or knowledge for other purpose.
Historical knowledge is useful to know the past and avoid mistakes of the past thus has an effect of the well being to the individual[s] and humanity in the future.
It is the same with legal, economics, political, social, etc. knowledge.

Why? The various domains of knowledge work perfectly well as just different ways we have developed to answer differing sorts of questions. Superimposing some flowery talk of the betterment of humankind adds nothing.

My point in terms of the well-being of the individual[s] and humanity, science is the most credible and trustworthy of all other knowledge.

Unless we all die in a nuclear holocaust in which case our ghosts will all have to agree it was actually by far the worst.

Point is, if that is the case what sort of FSK do we rely objectively upon to rate why scientific knowledge is more credible, trustworthy and useful than others?
I am not answering the above at present but awaiting the views of others.

You'll need another one to establish what purpose is served by any such tier list first. And then another to delineate all the different knowledge domains, which is a set theory paradox just waiting to happen. Then you need another one that somehow answers this question of "usefulness" which is an infinte study in itself. And then you have to wait until humanity is extinct to get the final scores with the all important information about which domains contributed to our extinction (which presumably incurs a hefty points deduction and invalidates a few previously high scores)

[RCSaunders]

I believe [as evident] Scientific Knowledge* [in general] from the Scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] is the Most Credible & Trustworthy [along with Mathematics.]

If you agree, why and how?
If you do not agree, why?

• Btw, scientific knowledge like any other knowledge is not perfect not absolutely certain but has its positives and negatives aspects.
  In the above case, I am netting all the positive and negatives and the resultant of scientific knowledge is a net-positive [benefits outweigh costs] which is more credible than other net-positive knowledge.

The question might matter if you had the slightest notion of what knowledge actually is. It is obvious you do not. There is not unique kind of knowledge,
scientific, knowledge."

Knowledge is knowledge. Science is one method of discovery but hardly the only one. Probably less than 1% of all knowledge is knowledge derived by the physical sciences.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's a severely tortured sentence, what is it that you are trying to say?

It makes little difference though, science kowledge is the best when you want to know a science thing, it's not terribly helpful when you want to answer a question about the true meaning of James Joyce's Ulysses.

If somebody attempts to use their knowledge of early 20th Century Irish literature to explain the orbit of a comet, I promise I will back you up when you tell them that science knowledge is very much more credible and trustworthy for that purpose. Otherwise, no, there's no value in the comparison.

All faculty of knowledge somehow is linked to the betterment of the well being of the individual[s] and humanity.
If one know something it have various utility, e.g. it can bring enjoyment or knowledge for other purpose.
Historical knowledge is useful to know the past and avoid mistakes of the past thus has an effect of the well being to the individual[s] and humanity in the future.
It is the same with legal, economics, political, social, etc. knowledge.

Why? The various domains of knowledge work perfectly well as just different ways we have developed to answer differing sorts of questions. Superimposing some flowery talk of the betterment of humankind adds nothing.

My point in terms of the well-being of the individual[s] and humanity, science is the most credible and trustworthy of all other knowledge.

Unless we all die in a nuclear holocaust in which case our ghosts will all have to agree it was actually by far the worst.

Point is, if that is the case what sort of FSK do we rely objectively upon to rate why scientific knowledge is more credible, trustworthy and useful than others?
I am not answering the above at present but awaiting the views of others.

You'll need another one to establish what purpose is served by any such tier list first. And then another to delineate all the different knowledge domains, which is a set theory paradox just waiting to happen. Then you need another one that somehow answers this question of "usefulness" which is an infinte study in itself. And then you have to wait until humanity is extinct to get the final scores with the all important information about which domains contributed to our extinction (which presumably incurs a hefty points deduction and invalidates a few previously high scores)

First we have to list down all human knowledge on hand.
Then we categorize them in to various relevant categories.
From there we can rank their credibility, trustworthiness, utility via certain criteria.

Note for example when one is faced with challenges from say theology, pseudo-sciences, various sciences on certain truth say, validating how things originate, surely there are degrees of truths and objectivity [as defined] to them thus the question of their reliability, credibility, trustworthy, and utility.
So the question is how are we to rank them?

Point is in practice scientific knowledge is so prevalent is all aspects of life and continue to be used [with reservations where necessary] in contrast to other knowledge, implied that scientific knowledge has a higher degree of objectivity, thus credibility and trustworthiness over others.

I have the competence to come up with an effective methods of ranking them.
But as mentioned I won't go into the details.
What is critical here is the principle of ranking their respective degrees of objectivity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe [as evident] Scientific Knowledge* [in general] from the Scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] is the Most Credible & Trustworthy [along with Mathematics.]

If you agree, why and how?
If you do not agree, why?

• Btw, scientific knowledge like any other knowledge is not perfect not absolutely certain but has its positives and negatives aspects.
  In the above case, I am netting all the positive and negatives and the resultant of scientific knowledge is a net-positive [benefits outweigh costs] which is more credible than other net-positive knowledge.

The question might matter if you had the slightest notion of what knowledge actually is. It is obvious you do not. There is not unique kind of knowledge,
scientific, knowledge."

Knowledge is knowledge. Science is one method of discovery but hardly the only one. Probably less than 1% of all knowledge is knowledge derived by the physical sciences.

You are merely expressing your views from ignorance and dogmatism.

Knowledge is realization and cognition of reality express in propositions [words, symbols, etc.]

Many will claim whatever they are claiming is 'knowledge'.
But whatever is claimed as knowledge must be presented in a continuum from the extreme of
1. opinions, to
2. beliefs, to
3. knowledge, verified and justified via a credible FSK.

What is knowledge is thus conditioned from a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

Can you show me any knowledge that is not conditioned upon a specific FSK?

[RCSaunders]

You are merely expressing your views from ignorance and dogmatism.

Then ignore them.

[FlashDangerpants]

All faculty of knowledge somehow is linked to the betterment of the well being of the individual[s] and humanity.
If one know something it have various utility, e.g. it can bring enjoyment or knowledge for other purpose.
Historical knowledge is useful to know the past and avoid mistakes of the past thus has an effect of the well being to the individual[s] and humanity in the future.
It is the same with legal, economics, political, social, etc. knowledge.

Why? The various domains of knowledge work perfectly well as just different ways we have developed to answer differing sorts of questions. Superimposing some flowery talk of the betterment of humankind adds nothing.

My point in terms of the well-being of the individual[s] and humanity, science is the most credible and trustworthy of all other knowledge.

Unless we all die in a nuclear holocaust in which case our ghosts will all have to agree it was actually by far the worst.

Point is, if that is the case what sort of FSK do we rely objectively upon to rate why scientific knowledge is more credible, trustworthy and useful than others?
I am not answering the above at present but awaiting the views of others.

You'll need another one to establish what purpose is served by any such tier list first. And then another to delineate all the different knowledge domains, which is a set theory paradox just waiting to happen. Then you need another one that somehow answers this question of "usefulness" which is an infinte study in itself. And then you have to wait until humanity is extinct to get the final scores with the all important information about which domains contributed to our extinction (which presumably incurs a hefty points deduction and invalidates a few previously high scores)

First we have to list down all human knowledge on hand.
Then we categorize them in to various relevant categories.
From there we can rank their credibility, trustworthiness, utility via certain criteria.

Thats' an impossible task, followed by a meaningless one, followed by an absurd one.

Note for example when one is faced with challenges from say theology, pseudo-sciences, various sciences on certain truth say, validating how things originate, surely there are degrees of truths and objectivity [as defined] to them thus the question of their reliability, credibility, trustworthy, and utility.
So the question is how are we to rank them?

All you have to do is look at what question is being answered, then refer to the best method for answering that sort of question. Only a fool would look at a ranking table for different knowledges, and only a moron would include homeopathy in any such table.

If somebody says "trust me I'm a physicist" before giving you medical advice contrary to that of your accountant, you shouldn't refer to a chart that rates physicists versus accountants, you should go to your doctor.

Point is in practice scientific knowledge is so prevalent is all aspects of life and continue to be used [with reservations where necessary] in contrast to other knowledge, implied that scientific knowledge has a higher degree of objectivity, thus credibility and trustworthiness over others.

That's a dreadful inference.

[Veritas Aequitas]

First we have to list down all human knowledge on hand.
Then we categorize them in to various relevant categories.
From there we can rank their credibility, trustworthiness, utility via certain criteria.

Thats' an impossible task, followed by a meaningless one, followed by an absurd one.

You are incompetent, ineffective, lazy and ignorant.

It is not difficult to list down whatever fields of knowledge known with as many as possible, then produce a taxonomy out of it and continue to add whatever is found later.

To insist a taxonomy of knowledge[s] is meaningless is dumb.

Note for example when one is faced with challenges from say theology, pseudo-sciences, various sciences on certain truth say, validating how things originate, surely there are degrees of truths and objectivity [as defined] to them thus the question of their reliability, credibility, trustworthy, and utility.
So the question is how are we to rank them?

All you have to do is look at what question is being answered, then refer to the best method for answering that sort of question. Only a fool would look at a ranking table for different knowledges, and only a moron would include homeopathy in any such table.

If somebody says "trust me I'm a physicist" before giving you medical advice contrary to that of your accountant, you shouldn't refer to a chart that rates physicists versus accountants, you should go to your doctor.

Again you are the FOOL and a moron in limiting your range of knowledge and not exploring possibilities for positives in novel ideas.
Once we have a taxonomy of knowledge, we can easily understand where each knowledge are relative to the others.
In addition we can compare the degrees of objectivity, truth, credibility, trustworthiness, utilities within the same group and other groups.

No normal Physicist nor professional will declare their specialty and proceed to make claims of knowledge other than their own. It only happen if they have gone mad which in that case they cannot [by default] represent the said profession.

Whenever there are issues of knowledge claims, each claimant may not reveal their profession nor their basis of their claims of truth. Where they reveal their profession, it is necessary to understand the credibility of their claims.

Example, in a murder or other court cases, it would be more effective for every jury to have knowledge of 'a taxonomy of knowledge' with their values if either the prosecutor or defense bring in a homeopathy to support their arguments in contrast to say a reputable scientist of the relevant field before they come up with their final judgment.

In another example, theists will bring in all sorts of claims [pseudo-sciences, fictions, speculations, illusory ideas, blind faith, emotional appeal, fallacious claims, etc. etc. thus it would be effective for a non-theist to have a taxonomy of knowledge with the respective values to counter the theists' argument with an objective and rational stance.

The same above process of reference to a taxonomy of knowledge with the respective values applies whenever there are disputes in the claims of truths of reality.

Point is in practice scientific knowledge is so prevalent is all aspects of life and continue to be used [with reservations where necessary] in contrast to other knowledge, implied that scientific knowledge has a higher degree of objectivity, thus credibility and trustworthiness over others.

That's a dreadful inference.

Again you are very ignorant in the above.

For any average person in our modern age, it is very intuitive for them to infer [intuitively] the dominance of scientific knowledge is the various aspect of human life especially in technology, medicines, etc.

I have read a lot of papers [many reputable ones] where the authors acknowledge the same inference that scientific knowledge is dominant.
It is only the theists who exude high confidence the knowledge from their God is most truthful over all other human-based knowledge.

There are also may polls and research findings which indicate scientific knowledge is dominant [in terms of objectivity and credibility] over other types of knowledge.

If we were to do a rigorous exercise on that point, I am very optimistic it will be very conclusive to affirm scientific knowledge [despite so many negatives and weakness] [along with mathematics] is the most credible and trustworthy over all other knowledge.
Btw, I have done a lot of reading and research on the above before I make the above claims.

You [dumb, moronic, a fool] OTOH is making arrogant statements based ignorance without detailed research on the subject.

[FlashDangerpants]

First we have to list down all human knowledge on hand.
Then we categorize them in to various relevant categories.
From there we can rank their credibility, trustworthiness, utility via certain criteria.

Thats' an impossible task, followed by a meaningless one, followed by an absurd one.

You are incompetent, ineffective, lazy and ignorant.

It is not difficult to list down whatever fields of knowledge known with as many as possible, then produce a taxonomy out of it and continue to add whatever is found later.

Go on then. Show us.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thats' an impossible task, followed by a meaningless one, followed by an absurd one.

You are incompetent, ineffective, lazy and ignorant.

It is not difficult to list down whatever fields of knowledge known with as many as possible, then produce a taxonomy out of it and continue to add whatever is found later.

Go on then. Show us.

Use your intelligence to survey what is right in front of you in the internet.

The "Wikipedia" is some sort clue of a 'taxonomy of knowledge' though not a polished and rigorous one.

From that clue and based on those principles one can easily produce an rigorous taxonomy of human knowledge if given the time and resources.

[FlashDangerpants]

From that clue and based on those principles one can easily produce an rigorous taxonomy of human knowledge given the time and resources.

Do it then