Do you think the method of science is a better way for gaining truth than other methods? Why or Why not?This question comes from Religion and Philosophy course

6 Answers | Add Yours

litteacher8's profile pic

litteacher8 | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

I think science is a better way of finding truth in some cases. Let's say you want to cure an illness, for example. You can pray for the answer, or look to an astrological or mystical answer. Ultimately, science can better determine and treat the cause of the illness.
brettd's profile pic

brettd | High School Teacher | (Level 2) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

Most definitely, science is a better way of determining truth and facts.  Not a perfect way, mind you, as there is no perfect way, and there is so much that is unknown and currently inexplicable that even science cannot explain it all at present.  It is simply the best available means to humans to pursue the truth.

auntlori's profile pic

Lori Steinbach | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

I agree with the above post.  Truth can be found in all areas of life, and science is only a part of that.  Absolute truth is knowable in many areas, but personal truth is just that--personal.  One can know something or experience something which is truthful but can never be proven at all.  Science may substantiate those kinds of truths, but inherently they aren't provable.  Truth is truth, no matter where or by whom it is found.  Science may be the best way to document or substantiate some kinds of truth, but it's certainly not the only means of discovering or proving truth. 

pohnpei397's profile pic

pohnpei397 | College Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

When it comes to finding the truth about physical facts, science is a better way than anything else.  When you use the scientific method, you creat hypotheses that you can then test.  If you do your tests correctly, other people will be able to duplicate your results and prove that you are correct.  Once this is done, we know whether your hypothesis contained truth.  This is much superior to what historians or economists or other non-scientists are able to do in terms of finding truth.

However, once you get out of the realm of physical facts, science is no better than anything else.  So when you are talking about religion, science is useless.  Science can never answer the question "is there a god" or the question "what does God want me to do?"  Science can never tell us the purpose of life.

So for this kind of question, science is useless for finding truth.

picturesque's profile pic

picturesque | Student, Undergraduate | (Level 1) Valedictorian

Posted on

No i do not think its the best method because so many times it happened that scientists claimed certain things and they later on proved to be wrong. And i think the best method to gain the truth is Divine Revelation.

krishna-agrawala's profile pic

krishna-agrawala | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted on

The method of science is the method of logic and of ascertaining fact. There can be no two view that this is the best method of finding or knowing truth. The controversy of science versus other subjects or fields of knowledge frequently arises not because supporter of disciplines other than science reject logic and fact,. The controversy arises because some self-styled champions of science are unable to, and sometimes refuse to, see the logical and factual base of the alternative knowledge.

Let us consider the field of philosophy. A lot of what we call scientific knowledge and scientific method today, originated as philosophical thoughts thousands of years back. Philosophers such as Socrates taught the Western World the methods of objective enquiry and logical thinking. Thousands of years back philosophers tried to unravel the mysteries of universe with a scanty base of objective knowledge, because that was all that was available to them. Today also philosophers use logic to understand the nature of universe, in face of inadequate factual data. In such situations the only way out is to rely more on logic. And philosophers make ample use of this approach.

If we were to reject purely logical deductions of philosophers, on the basis that the truth of these deductions cannot be ascertained physically, then we will have to reject many scientific theories also. For example, there is no way we can establish the physical presence of a medium which is essential for the existence of all light and electromagnetic waves. We accept existence of gravity purely on the basis of its effect. We use the logic that if effect is there in form of gravitational pull, then the force causing this pull must also exist.

We’ve answered 318,936 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question