What do you consider valuable about science as a way of knowing things?

Empirical evidence: I really enjoy that science is reliable. No science is done

without solid proof and an explanation. Science relies on empirical evidence

done by labs, testing, experiments, etc.

Objectivity: Science strives for objectivity by minimizing personal bias and

personal emotional influence. It is always focused on evidence based reasoning,

which helps prove the conclusions are factual rather than subjective opinions.

Continuous Improvement: Science strives to always discover more evidence and

more proof to improve their findings.

Universal Principles: The principles and laws are universal, so essentially, it's the

same all over the world. It allows more people to accept it as it has been

universally proven.

Transparency: Scientific methods are always open to scrutiny and allows others

to replicate the findings to see if there are any discrepancies, further validating

the reliability of science.

What do you consider to be limitations of science as a way of knowing

things?

Subjectivity in Interpretation: People interpret things differently, scientific data

being one of them. Oftentimes, people will interpret the evidence and form it

regarding their own personal views and biases.

Ethical Considerations: Scientific research sometimes involves ethical dilemmas,

such as animal testing or possibly harmful experiments. This is something I have

a big problem with. Animal testing is cruel, evil and inhumane. I don't care what

they're trying to prove, animals should never be subjected to that.

Cultural and Societal Influences: Societal and cultural influences can impact

scientific research. Public opinion, funding priorities, and cultural norms could

possibly influence the focus of scientific inquiry.

What do you consider valuable about literature/stories/poetry as a way of

knowing things?

Personally, I love all things literature. My major is creative writing, so I enjoy

reading and writing quite a bit. It offers such a unique way of knowing things,

even knowing things about science, depending on the subject of the writing.

Although I prefer fiction writing, it still contains true knowledge that is rather

informative. Almost everything I read teaches me something. I find that political

literature is less appealing to me, as I honestly don't like politics. It just irritates

me. However, political literature is quite informative, covering a vast range of

important topics.

What do you consider to be limitations of literature/stories/poetry as a way

of knowing things?
As I said earlier, I love fiction writing. As fiction writing is not real, it doesn't cover

the levels of reality that nonfiction writings do. Though, fiction does have real,

scientific backing. For example, when reading crime books, the author will

research true crime and causes of injuries. So, even though the stories aren't

real, the scientific portions of it are. No matter the subject, fiction has real parts to

the stories, to a certain extent.