Talk:Other ways of knowing

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Wouldn't just walking outside and looking around count as "non-scientific", since if I look at the neighbour's tree it's entirely subjective and not subject to any sort of scientific methodology. --Kels 06:27, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Observation is the first step in forming a hypothesis. If you looked at the tree and decided it was evidence that chlorophyll-loving aliens first settled the Earth because you could "feel it", that would be bunk. But observing nature, then forming testable hypotheses is wonderful.User:PalMD
There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
When he finds that the tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad.
"Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd -
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Shall continue to be
Since observed by,
yours faithfully,

Totnesmartin 07:52, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

beat you to it, Martin son of Totnes. see my earlier post

Must be a Ukers thing. Keepoff the grass 08:14, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

It IS a UKers thing, the quad is in the grounds of Oxford's Balliol College! Totnesmartin 08:55, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

"interrupting animal entrails" - I like this one. Not sure if it's a deliberate error or not. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Scientific Verification[edit]

If I am not mistaken, these methods could all be tested scientifically if they give specific prediction. For example, if someone claims to be able to read voltages by interpreting tea leaves, it is quite trivial to set up a double blind experiment to see if the practitioner can in fact read the voltages through tea leaves. Perhaps the issue is the lack of specific predictions associated with these methods, as opposed to the methods themselves. Imarcuson (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If one uses 'these and other methods' as a form of creative doodling (eg 'dreaming the benzine ring')/starting off lines of research/'I want one of those objects - how do I create it?' etc they can have validity - and some topics are driven by owok - religion etc.

Otherwise 'tosh in, tosh out' (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


There is one gaping flaw in the logic set forth by your general tone in these articles which nobody (even outside of this website) has been able to answer for me: science (and the reliance solely on science) has an inherent bias built into it. That bias is that science is limited only to the human experience. Yes, we can build machines to measure things like high-frequency sound waves. But the senses of us humans are otherwise very limited. For example: if I smell a rose, its smell is dulled compared to what a dog would smell. If I look at that rose, it's likely red. If a honey bee looks at that rose, it will see something super-violet. Therefore, I would argue that the general dismissal of theism based on the fact that we, in the human experience, cannot see this God or taste it or smell it, has an inherent flaw. The Rational Theist (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If you cannot know it, then you cannot know it, and this cannot count as an other way of knowing - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
And you know that a bee sees the rose in ultra-violet not because you can experience that, but because of scientific research on matters beyond direct human perception. Weorthe (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


...knowing carnally a.k.a. shagging also count?--Arisboch (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

eh. I'm not aware of any sincere assertions to that end. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


I have removed "taking psychedelic drugs" from this list because there is plenty of hard scientific evidence, including fMRI scans, rat and mammalian studies, and pharmaceutical research indicating they actually improve brain functioning in the long term. Please see my recent additions to the articles for LSD and psilocybin. I have included multiple links to studies from respectable journals supporting my claims, including MAPS, a Harvard University funded research team.

This is not to say that LSD or psilocybin don't create delusions or manifestations of psychotic, conspiratorial ideation--they do, and that is a fact. But that refers to uncontrolled, recreational use. In clinical therapy, when guided by a rational anchor (such as a licensed therapist), the opposite is true.

The fact remains that LSD and psilocybin improve neuroplasticity, and improve intelligence scores on various tests in the long term (such as linguistic memory). LSD can also treat Parkinson's disease according to many pharmaceutical patents, and psilocybin in rat studies has shown to be a potential treatment for vegetative syndrome.

I don't think it would be fair to put "taking prozac" on this list as a "delusional form of thinking". Adderal is known to induce amphetamine psychosis in a way nearly identical to that of meth, but "taking adderall" isn't on this list because it obviously has therapeutic applications which are approved of my the medical community. Same with pristiq, loxapine, or tianeptine. Taking certain drugs inarguably have both benefits and side effects. That's a fact of life. Focusing only on the side effects and making a caricature out of them is an expedient, and very childish strawman argument.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Some 'other ways of knowing'[edit]

... are valid: the person who has studied a field enough may #know# an item is valid/"wrong"/something else entirely without initially consciously knowing why; and people can to varying extents learn to pick up subtle clues as to something; or there may be degrees of deliberate mystification (radar and eating carrots in WWII). (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

... Should Common Sense be added to this list?