The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Based on what I have read so far [sufficiently extensive and wide] -pari-passu*- I gathered scientific facts [along with mathematics] emerging from the human-bases scientific FSK are the most credible, reliable and trustworthy at PRESENT.

• * scientific knowledge [which is wide and comprised many sub-topics of science] come in a range of credibility and reliability, thus, I am comparing the average of best-to-worst of each source.

It is true my claim above is not fully verified and justified since there are no hard evidence to prove the claim.

I have provided a basis, the criteria and methodology of how we can rate the various sources of knowledge in this thread;
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

However, even without hard evidence, most rational people will agree Science will be rated the top most [Mathematics 2nd] hands down.

If anyone has doubts, what other sources of knowledge can possibly be more credible, reliable and trustworthy than science?

It is possible some fundamentalist Christians will claim the Bible from God is the most credible, reliable and trustworthy than science in terms of the knowledge of the natural world and reality.
However by merely referring the critical criteria for knowledge based on testability and repeatability, we can throw their faith-based claim down the drain.

So, what other sources of knowledge can possibly be more credible, reliable and trustworthy than science?

Notes:

ChatGPT wrote:Science, together with mathematics, is a highly credible and reliable source of facts, truths, and knowledge about the natural world. This is because science relies on systematic observation, experimentation, and rigorous testing of hypotheses, which allows scientists to make objective and evidence-based claims about the world.

Scientific knowledge is also subject to a rigorous process of peer review, in which other scientists review and scrutinize the methods and results of scientific studies before they are published in reputable scientific journals. This helps to ensure that scientific claims are accurate, reliable, and can be reproduced by other researchers.

In contrast, non-scientific knowledge, such as history, politics, and legal knowledge, relies more on interpretation and subjective analysis of information. While these fields can provide valuable insights into human behavior, culture, and society, they may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of evidence and testing as scientific knowledge.

It's worth noting, however, that there are limits to what science can tell us. While science is very good at explaining natural phenomena and making predictions based on empirical data, it may not be well-suited to answering questions about values, ethics, and subjective experiences. In these cases, we may need to rely on other sources of knowledge, such as philosophy, ethics, and the humanities.

In summary, while science is a highly credible and reliable source of knowledge about the natural world, it's important to recognize the limitations of scientific inquiry and to use a range of sources and disciplines to gain a more complete understanding of the world.

WIthout an explanation of which FSK thing assigns the credibility scoring system and the methods of that FSK thing, this is an empty question.

Question: Generally it is claimed that Scientific Knowledge [with its limitations and weaknesses] is the most credible and reliable source of knowledge.
Are there any surveys, polls or research done to confirm the above claim? Please provide reference if any.

• ChatGPT:
  Yes, there have been several surveys and studies conducted to explore public perceptions of the credibility and reliability of scientific knowledge. Here are some examples:
  
  The Pew Research Center conducted a survey in 2019 on public attitudes towards science. The survey found that a majority of Americans (79%) believe that science has made life easier for most people, and 64% say that government investment in scientific research pays off in the long run. However, the survey also revealed that a significant minority (36%) of Americans have doubts about the scientific consensus on climate change, and 20% are skeptical of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.
  Reference: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/201 ... c-experts/
  
  A study published in the journal Public Understanding of Science in 2018 examined the factors that influence public trust in scientific research. The study found that trust in science is strongly influenced by the perceived credibility of scientific institutions, as well as by personal values and beliefs. The study also found that trust in science is often influenced by political and ideological factors.
  Reference: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 2517741333
  
  A survey conducted by the British Science Association in 2018 found that 82% of adults in the UK think that science has had a positive impact on society. However, the survey also revealed that many people are unsure about certain scientific concepts, such as the difference between a virus and a bacteria.
  Reference: https://www.britishscienceassociation.o ... on-society
  
  Overall, these surveys and studies suggest that scientific knowledge is generally viewed as credible and reliable by the public, but there is also some skepticism and uncertainty about certain scientific issues.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 11:34 am public perceptions

Bandwagons.

And all those bandwagons are mistaken anyway because they are based on a realist conception of science.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 11:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 11:34 am public perceptions

Bandwagons.

And all those bandwagons are mistaken anyway because they are based on a realist conception of science.

So what’s the source of non-mistaken conceptions?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 11:29 am Based on what I have read so far [sufficiently extensive and wide] -pari-passu*- I gathered scientific facts [along with mathematics] emerging from the human-bases scientific FSK are the most credible, reliable and trustworthy at PRESENT.

None of what you present is science.
You have no sense of what science is.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 11:29 am Based on what I have read so far [sufficiently extensive and wide]

LOL

It does NOT matter one iota how much is read, when reading from a Truly CLOSED VIEW POINT, which OBVIOUSLY 'you', "veritas aequitas' DO.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 11:29 am -pari-passu*- I gathered scientific facts [along with mathematics] emerging from the human-bases scientific FSK are the most credible, reliable and trustworthy at PRESENT.

And here is FURTHER PROOF that it just does NOT matter, one iota, how much one reads, when reading from a Truly CLOSED VIEW POINT.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 11:29 am

• * scientific knowledge [which is wide and comprised many sub-topics of science] come in a range of credibility and reliability, thus, I am comparing the average of best-to-worst of each source.

It is true my claim above is not fully verified and justified since there are no hard evidence to prove the claim.

I have provided a basis, the criteria and methodology of how we can rate the various sources of knowledge in this thread;
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

BESIDES TO 'you', "veritas aequitas", there is NO such 'thing' as 'fsk'. Other than in 'that head' ALONE.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 11:29 am However, even without hard evidence, most rational people will agree Science will be rated the top most [Mathematics 2nd] hands down.

SO WHAT?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 11:29 am If anyone has doubts, what other sources of knowledge can possibly be more credible, reliable and trustworthy than science?

ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE 'knowledge'.

HOW SIMPLE and EASY was 'this'?

If 'scientific knowledge' deals ON and WITH 'assumptions' or 'theories', ONLY, which ALL of 'science' ACTUALLY IS, then, OBVIOUSLY, the 'knowledge' that IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLE IS FAR MORE CREDIBLE, RELIABLE, AND TRUSTWORTHY.

By the way, one NEVER had to be ANYWHERE NEAR what is called 'clever' to WORK OUT and UNCOVER 'this Fact'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 11:29 am It is possible some fundamentalist Christians will claim the Bible from God is the most credible, reliable and trustworthy than science in terms of the knowledge of the natural world and reality.

AND 'now' we FINALLY get BACK TO what 'it' IS that you WANT TO ARGUE and FIGHT FOR.

ALL of the OTHER 'stuff' ABOUT 'fsk's' and 'scientific knowledge being THE BEST' is ALL just FURTHER PROOF of how when some one BELIEVES some 'thing' is true, then they will make up and/or say just ANY 'thing' to back up and support THEIR BELIEF, even NO MATTER just how STUPID and ILLOGICAL 'it' IS that they ARE SAYING and CLAIMING. If these people THINK that some 'thing' will back up and support THEIR BELIEF, they WILL GO AHEAD and SAY 'it'.

As PROVED IRREFUTABLY True just by 'this one' here MANY, MANY TIMES throughout this forum.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 11:29 am However by merely referring the critical criteria for knowledge based on testability and repeatability, we can throw their faith-based claim down the drain.

BUT, CONSIDERING THE Fact that 'faith-based claims' have NOT YET been TESTED, and thus REPEATABILITY is STILL A LONG WAY OUT of the question AS WELL, WHY would ANY OPEN one CONSIDER throwing ANY UNTESTED CLAIM, so-call, 'down the drain'?

OF COURSE, and OBVIOUSLY, ANY CLOSED person, WITH BELIEFS, would do MANY 'things' to 'TRY TO' THROW an OPPOSING CLAIM, 'down the drain', BUT NOT MANY "others" WOULD.

A Truly OPEN person NEVER WOULD, and that IS FOR SURE.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 07, 2023 11:29 am So, what other sources of knowledge can possibly be more credible, reliable and trustworthy than science?

ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE KNOWLEDGE.

(I answered by the way in capital letters to make THE ANSWER MORE NOTICEABLE. Can you SEE 'it'. Oh, that is right, I FORGOT, you do NOT READ what you SUSPECT MIGHT COUNTER and/or REFUTE YOUR CLAIMS.Which is just FURTHER PROOF of what THE CLOSED are REALLY LIKE. In other words, they, literally, BLIND "themselves" to the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth, IF 'it' COUNTERS or REFUTES 'THEIR BELIEF/S'.)