Why it is about science that grants it a monopoly on systematic honesty?
Nobody here (but you) has claimed that science had a monopoly on systematic honesty.
Why is systematic honesty the relevant procedural virtue with regard to this question?
Systematic honesty is relevant to science for reasons that should be fairly obvious. The point of science is that dishonesty can’t be hidden for long. Repeatability shows the way to the truth, and there’s no hiding from it. The benefit of systematic honesty is that we approach the truth iteratively.
You asked “of what use is science”. Artyom seemed to be trying to point out that science is of great use—if you are seeking the truth.
He then questioned the benefit of your “alternative approaches”… which you never actually mentioned a) what they are or b) what use they are, by comparison with the scientific method of seeking.
You seemed to imply that science was of no benefit to seeking meaning… but gave no evidence of that fact, nor any benefits of you alternatives.
Why do you seem so sure that only science is capable of producing worthy answers to such questions?
he probably isn’t sure. Just as I am not… However, my own experience with science.. and with many alternative methods gives me the background to state that science, with its systematic honesty, tends toward better solutions than any other method I’ve so far been able to find. Also that you can, in fact, combine science with almost any other useful method.
Take (as a random example) “following your heart” as an “alternative method”. It is my experience that “following your heart” is generally undertaken as a random decision-making procedure… but there is no reason why, at any one decision, you can’t write down what your heart predicts to be a good answer… then checking if it worked out to be the best option when the dust settles… and using that as input into your next decision.
Hey presto… science.
This blog is the most cringe-inducing example of Plato’s Cave I have seen in a long, long time.
Hmm, ad hominem, and no evidence of any actual evidence of why even you consider this blog to be related to Plato’s cave… sadly, my heart tells me that you are likely just a troll…
Nobody here (but you) has claimed that science had a monopoly on systematic honesty.
Systematic honesty is relevant to science for reasons that should be fairly obvious. The point of science is that dishonesty can’t be hidden for long. Repeatability shows the way to the truth, and there’s no hiding from it. The benefit of systematic honesty is that we approach the truth iteratively.
You asked “of what use is science”. Artyom seemed to be trying to point out that science is of great use—if you are seeking the truth.
He then questioned the benefit of your “alternative approaches”… which you never actually mentioned a) what they are or b) what use they are, by comparison with the scientific method of seeking.
You seemed to imply that science was of no benefit to seeking meaning… but gave no evidence of that fact, nor any benefits of you alternatives.
he probably isn’t sure. Just as I am not… However, my own experience with science.. and with many alternative methods gives me the background to state that science, with its systematic honesty, tends toward better solutions than any other method I’ve so far been able to find. Also that you can, in fact, combine science with almost any other useful method.
Take (as a random example) “following your heart” as an “alternative method”. It is my experience that “following your heart” is generally undertaken as a random decision-making procedure… but there is no reason why, at any one decision, you can’t write down what your heart predicts to be a good answer… then checking if it worked out to be the best option when the dust settles… and using that as input into your next decision.
Hey presto… science.
Hmm, ad hominem, and no evidence of any actual evidence of why even you consider this blog to be related to Plato’s cave… sadly, my heart tells me that you are likely just a troll…