"How do we know what is true?" - from the British Humanist Association

[trotsky]

Short video narrated by the delightful Stephen Fry.

[Igel]

1. Yes, but three comments.

1. http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/08/01/488228453/the-selective-laziness-of-human-reasoning

2. There are many things where observation doesn't work, because biases or flawed assumptions get in the way, or because what we see isn't all there is (but we think it is).

3. There are also things where it really doesn't matter as far as science is concered, but given human psychology (one of those things not amenable to strict positivistic analysis at the current state of the knowledge) does matter as far as social dynamics are concerned.

We'll ignore the idea that for many things, if somebody does something illogical it's not the duty of society to correct them and set them on the right course, or that in a democracy is the majority wants something fairly stupid, well, it's their choice.

Then again, I'm not sure science says that "democracy" is the ultimate, best form of political structure. Even "common good" arguments assume that the common good only applies to those now living or soon to be living.

[trotsky]

2. So the question becomes, do you have a better method?

I don't think anyone is saying observation and reasoning are perfect, but that they are the best method we have of learning.

Compare and contrast to religious revelation, for instance.

[skepticscott]

3. For #2

Which is why science is a collective, and not an individual endeavor. Duh.

[rug]

4. "a reliable way to gain any knowledge about how the world around us works"

And?