Other ways of knowing

{{pseudosciencenav}}[[File:Your-information.png|thumb|right|What about... [[Crank magnetism|all of the above?]]<ref>[http://poorlydrawnlines.com/comic/your-information/ Where do you get your information?] Poorly drawn lines</ref>]]
{{Sources needed}}
"'''Other ways of knowing'''" are alleged methods of obtaining information by various "alternative"  (or non-[[scientific method|scientific]]/non-[[rationalism|rational]]/non-[[logic|logical]]) means. Mainly, these exist as an extension of the "[[non-overlapping magisteria]]" concept that separates the scientific and physical from the [[religion|religious]] or [[spiritual]] and, as such, allow practitioners of [[pseudoscience]] to get away with practically ''anything''.

When these methods work, they are usually subject to [[confirmation bias]] and [[selective reporting]], and when they don't work the excuse is that the "powers are blocked."

==Culture as an other way of knowing==
The non-specious version claims that [[literature]] and [[art]] function as effective tools in teaching humans to be humans. Even a mostly-clear thinker like [[Christopher Hitchens]] was a huge advocate of the value of good fiction for humans to understand how other humans think. Or, as J. G. Ballard put it:<ref>[http://www.jgballard.ca/non_fiction/jgb_notes_nowhere.html Notes From Nowhere]</ref> "Fiction is a branch of neurology." Stories are a ''hugely'' effective way of communicating ideas to humans, to the point that narrative bias is a major [[cognitive bias]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Betsch |first=Cornelia |last2=Haase |first2=Niels |last3=Renkewitz |first3=Frank |last4=Schmid |first4=Philipp |date=2015 |title=The narrative bias revisited: What drives the biasing influence of narrative information on risk perceptions? |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decision-making/article/narrative-bias-revisited-what-drives-the-biasing-influence-of-narrative-information-on-risk-perceptions/52E778EFD11CA174B5573A4AFE3664E1 |journal=Judgment and Decision Making |language=en |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=241–264 |doi=10.1017/S1930297500004654 |issn=1930-2975|doi-access=free }}</ref>

Similar to this is the concept of epistemic humility as applied to [[postcolonialism|postcolonial theory]] and critical theory, in that non-Western forms of epistemology are frequently dismissed out of hand without properly evaluating their claims or have assumptions made about them based on shaky pretenses backed mostly by societal bias.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/741937687 |title=Decolonizing epistemologies: Latina/o theology and philosophy |date=2012 |publisher=Fordham University Press |isbn=978-0-8232-4135-4 |editor-last=Isasi-Díaz |editor-first=Ada María |edition=1st|series=Transdisciplinary theological colloquia |location=New York |oclc=741937687 |editor-last2=Mendieta |editor-first2=Eduardo}}</ref>

The error to watch for in this usage of the term is [[Equivocation|changing the meaning of "knowing" mid-argument]]:<ref>[http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/e-l-doctorow-is-fiction-an-other-way-of-knowing#comment-242599 Comment on "E.L. Doctorow: Is fiction an “other way of knowing”?"] ''Whyevolutionistrue''</ref>

# Say that by "knowing", you mean something like "learning something socially valuable" or "experiencing something that changes how you think".
# Get a scientist to agree that, yes, non-science subjects can give you that stuff. This won't be hard; probably nobody disputes it.
# Switch meanings and claim you've now shown that other subjects yield the same sort of knowledge that science yields.

==Some "other ways of knowing"==
They include, but are not limited to:
* studying religious books such as the [[Torah]], the [[Qur'an]], the [[Tao Te Ching]], or the [[Bible]]
* reading inspirational books such as those by Kahlil Gibran or [[Deepak Chopra]], or anything with a title that starts with [[Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance| "Zen and the Art of…"]]
* taking drugs such as [[LSD]], [[peyote]], [[psilocybin]], [[marijuana |cannabis]], or [[ayahuasca]].<ref>[https://the5thdimensions.com/ayahuasca-and-the-spirit-world/ "Ayahauasca and the spirit world," The 5th Dimension, Apr. 30, 2019, accessed Sep. 20, 2019.]</ref><ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/Psychonaut/comments/2xuyya/native_american_knowledge_about_psychedelics/ user FuturePOTUS, "Native American knowledge about psychedelic," Reddit, Mar. 3, 2015, accessed Sep. 20, 2019.]</ref>
* [[Introspection|contemplating one's own inner, or emotional, state]]<ref group=note>Unless the only knowledge sought is a clarification of one's own emotional state. Even then, professional counseling is often superior to private navel-gazing.</ref>
* investigating the philosophies of indigenous peoples or [[indigenous science]]
* [[astrology]]
* [[palmistry]]
* divination via:
:* [[dowsing]]
:* pendulum
:* [[ouija board]]s
:* [[tea|reading tea leaves]]
:* interpreting animal entrails
:* [[I Ching]]
:* itching (and/or scratching)
* [[revelation]]
* [[phrenology]]
* guessing
* [[intuition]]
* [[truthiness|"gut feeling"]]
** [[belief|believing]] — like, <u>really believing</u> — after the manner of (say) ''[[The Secret]]''
* [[shaman]]ic journeying
* [[tabloid]]s
* bibliomancy (randomly opening the [[Bible]] and reading something. Spoiler alert: someone dies.)
* [[noetic science]]
* [[meditation]]
* [[Tarot|tarot card reading]]
* epiphany
* the "eureka" effect{{cn}}
* ''To Know Him is to Love Him'', The Teddy Bears

==When it appears to "work"==
More-or-less by definition, other ways of knowing cannot be [[Falsifiability|falsified]], and cannot be independently [[Reproducibility|replicated]], and as such are not [[scientific method|scientific]].

This, in turn, does not mean that information garnered by these methods is ''always'' incorrect, just that it shouldn't be trusted ''on its own''. Mind reading, for example, can be classed as an "other way", but may be quite correct with the information it generates due to a person's good instinct or a method such as [[cold reading]] (or at least when it is corroborated by more reliable sources).

Rationalists are advised not to try these at home without proper supervision.

==See also==
*[[Carlos Castaneda]]
*[[Paul Feyerabend|Feyerabend's "epistemological anarchism"]]
*[[Folk science]]
*[[Science doesn't know everything]]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Arguments against evidence-based medicine]]

Categories: Pseudoscience, Arguments against evidence-based medicine