Nick asked:

I have and essay to write for my theory of knowledge lesson and I am having some difficulties, so I
would like to ask your help for some ideas, or an example. The topic is: Do we have to think
scientifically in order to find the truth?

============

This is an excellent question.

When are we thinking scientifically? You don't have to put on a white coat. We are thinking
scientifically whenever we break down a problem into its components; whenever we do a systematic
survey of, or search for evidence; whenever we put forward possible solutions or explanations and
test them.

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,Robert Pirsig gives an account — totally convincing to
someone like me who has never brought a screwdriver near a car or motorcycle or TV set — that the
only reliable way of solving problems with your bike is the scientific way, using reason and logical
analysis. Sure, sometimes the problem sorts itself out with a good thump (it works for my TV,
anyway). But it's not a reliable way. You can do more harm than good. And even if you do good, you'll
never know the truthabout that bad connection or loose wire or whatever it was that caused the
problem. The second time around, thumping might not work so well.

The way of science increases your chances of finding the truth. It also gives you a more reliable way
of checking whether or not the thing you have found really is the truth it purports to be.

As readers of his book will know, Pirsig argues that the scientific approach is not enough if you have
the wrong attitudes, if you are not on the Quality track. You will never be a good mechanic if you ears
are deaf to subtle differences in the sound that the engine makes, or if you have no feel for the right
force to apply when screwing a nut. However, our question was not about whether thinking
scientifically is sufficienton its own, but whether it is necessary.Are there any cases where the best
way to get to the truth is to abandon the scientific approach?

You are a teacher who has begun to suspect that a child is being bullied at school. You want to get to
'the truth' of the matter. You can adopt the scientific methods of the detective: Interview all the
children concerned, cross check their stories, speak to the parents, look at past school reports. Then
you can put forward your 'hypothesis'. But you could still be wrong. In a court of law, the evidence
would not be sufficient to secure a conviction. The only reliable method is to secure the confidence of
those involved, and get them to talk. In other words, the route to truth is through personal relationship,
the meeting of Iand thou.

For those who believe that there are truths revealed in religion, it will of course be no surprise that not
all truths are revealed by science. What is interesting is the close similarity between the kinds of thing
theologians say when they are talking about faithand what I have just said about the I-thou
relationship.

The best thing to read on this is Martin Buber I and Thou,which along with Zen and the Art of
Motorcycle Maintenanceshould be on every introduction to epistemology reading list.

Geoffrey Klempner