Scientific Knowledge? I've read about that.

There is an idea, an attitude towards the truth, that is commonly held. It is that we must focus in on the facts and empirical evidence in order to find the truth. That we must do equations, and test theories, and rule out all of the impossibilities in order to understand the "real truth". I take issue with this approach to knowledge.

My first issue is this approach sounds great in theory but it in practice how much knowledge does each individual gain through empirical observation and experimentation. On average, probably close to none. Most knowledge we have is based on someone else's empirical study, which is great for them but it means that in reality most people's approach to gaining knowledge and finding truth is believing what other people tell them. And how do we chose who to believe? Someone might argue that it is based on the quality of their research, how much empirical evidence they have, and whether or not their experiments are repeatable. This sounds really good. It's something that I am able vomit up easily because of my traditional education and cultural indoctrination. But let's take a moment to actually think about this.

Plate tectonics. It's widely accepted that the earth's crust is made up of many different "plates" or sections of crust that move and interact with one another. I personally hold this same belief. I don't know if it is considered scientific fact yet, but it's probably close. However, neither I or anyone I know has ever personally conducted any experiments or collected any empirical evidence to support this theory. Nor do I actually know from personal experience whether any of the scientists who claim to have conducted experiments and collected empirical evidence followed acceptable scientific principles. I did read about the evidence in a book and I believed it was true, cause why would whoever wrote that book lie to me. But the point is that if I have knowledge about the "truth" of tectonic plates it came from choosing to believe something I read, which was written by a stranger who chose to believe something he read, which was written by a stranger who actually observed something (and hopefully he's not an idiot or a liar because we all believe him).

For me personally this same example applies to evolution, carbon dating, the big bang theory, the position of our solar system in the galaxy, global warming, and the health benefits of washing your hands after wiping (this may seem self-evident but the point is that it is something that I have no scientific proof of personally, besides "self-evident" is not the same as empirically proven) the list of things I have never personally proven goes on and on and on. And I consider myself more educated (and intelligent, though those things are not necessarily correlated) than 90% percent of the billions of people on this planet. So, in practice this is a faith based knowledge system. We have faith that who ever is doing the science is doing it right and telling us the truth as far as they have empirically discovered it.

Another problem I have is that this approach relies on the assumption that the universe can eventually (through enough tests and experiments) be reduced to actual comprehensible and measurable realities. I do not share this belief. The truth is everything, and we can never hope to understand it until we open ourselves to everything. The truth is not what happens 99.9999999% of the time. The truth includes that .0000001%. And multiplied throughout infinite time and space those tiny fractions add up to become not just significant, but equal to the majority (99.99 x ∞ = ∞, .01 x ∞ = ∞). In essence the truth is nothing more than an infinite list of impossibilities. And while it's good to learn things through empirical observation and experimentation (or to just believe the experiments of others) it's important that we don't close our minds so tightly around the "facts" we learn, that nothing else can get in.