Science and Apriori knowledge

How do humans know if a rope their eyes see is actually a rope?

Because the experience they get from watching a rope with eyes matches with their earlier experience they felt when they saw the rope in the past.

But why do they call a rope a rope? How do they actually know if the name of the thing they call 'rope' is actually a 'rope'?

Humans need not know the actual name of the thing. It is immaterial to them if its actual name is rope. This is because only humans give names to things in order to identify and distinguish the various experiences they perceive through senses.

But why science may say that a rope humans perceive may not be actually a rope?

This is because science apparently does not 100% believe in senses to determine the existence of something.

How can science back up its argument that what evidence tells you is the only truth?

science cannot prove if what the evidence tells you is the truth. This is because evidence as labelled by scientists is also 'existence of something' which humans can understand/experience only through the medium of senses. And science denies the accuracy of the senses in terms of conveying or transporting the truth of the outside world to the human mind.

How can science say evidence conveys truth but deny the accuracy of senses to convey the truth?

Yes science is self contradiction because it believes in evidence (object) but denies the accuracy of the senses(medium/interface). It does not realise that if senses are not accurate always it also means evidence also may not be true always. The object may be yellow. But suppose if humans eyes can see things only in white then the human mind perceives evidence in incorrectly. The evidence is as good as human sense. When scientists agree that sense could be wrong but evidence is always true they are self contradicting themselves. Evidence can be sensed, understood only through the medium of senses. So evidence is only as good as the senses.

Science and the people who follow it are very modest in their claims to “knowledge of reality”. Science does not claim it knows reality of anything science dabbles with at any point of time. Science only sticks to "an approximation of reality". Science makes predictions, and these predictions are tested by experiments. Newton's Theories have been tested and found to be accurate to one part in 10 million, Einstein's scientific predictions have been proved by observation and experiment to be accurate to one part in 10,000,000,000,000,000. Newton himself knew that his theory was true to one part in a thousand. (Penrose, 2000: page 26) Modern technologies and methods, especially in clocks and other instrumentation, are the reason for the improvements. A little bit of digging, and one can find many examples of how accurate scientific predictions can be.


But then close to truth is not the truth. It is mere mathematical way of describing 'risk or chances or probability'. You know it or you do not know it. I can give credibility to science if science can tell me the chances of something being true. But i am not sure if the probability number itself is true because one can give approximation of something to something only when one knows what that something actually looks like, or feels like etc. In this case, science confesses that it does not know truth.(its own knowledge based is built on aposterori activities). If it does not know the truth how can it even say that it is very close to truth? There is something fundamentally very wrong in this claim of science.

Some might argue for science (to be truth) because it has practical applications unlike philosophy which is abstract in nature. But does a thing is true if it is useful and has practical applications. Production of engineering products does not tell me the truth. It would help me in driving home, communication etc. I do not call a thing true simply because it has practical applications.

Science is not true since the claim that evidence proves something is dubious. Evidence in real world does not identify a being or thing. It identifies only a property. It never tells you if the orange juice is orange juice. For you to know i should know the essence of thing which is not its properties.

My idea says empirical evidence does not bestow me with the knowledge of a thing. It only tells me the properties of unknown entity. And the evidence in practice is actually claiming apriori knowledge of things as aposterori since it declares liquid to be orange juice by merely looking at the properties of orange juice. Or it does not know what the thing is.

The process of knowing a thing or being (once known it becomes knowledge) is of two types i.e apriori or aposterori. Apriori knowledge basically refers to knowledge of a thing by default. It does not need any experiment or empirical evidence to acquire the knowledge. In other words, such process of knowing a thing does not call for evidence. A person in possession of such knowledge claims the knowledge of the thing. On the other hand, aposterori knowledge is knowledge which is gained through proving something by evidence. But in true sense, there cannot be aposterori knowledge. The properties of orange juice does not tell me it is orange juice. This is because one cannot know properties of thing or being without knowing the thing or being. Properties of a thing or being do not exist independent of the thing or being.

Therefore when science claims it does not have apriori knowledge of orange juice it is an acknowledgment that it does not know orange juice. It might gain knowledge of properties of orange juice like its colour, acidity etc. But all of these are properties of orange juice and not orange juice. When you do not know what orange juice is how will you know the properties of something belong to orange juice? If this is the case, there can be only two plausible explanations to the claim of science that orange juice is proved by evidence of its properties:-

1) Science does not know if certain properties belong to orange juice since it does not know orange juice (aposterori knowledge). In other words, its claim is false.
2) Science already knows orange juice and also identifies properties of orange juice. But it falsely claims that it is proving if something is orange juice. In other words, science is merely apriori knowledge under false veil of aposterori, evidence etc.(Read "knowing knowledge" for a detail analysis of knowledge).