Well, if we're not allowed to use the scientific method... then you can't, really. At its heart science is a philosophical discipline that assumes the existence of a self-consistent objective reality governed by natural forces*. From there it's a job of filling in the details. You could untertake like a sociological study of scientists as they do science, I guess. -- * From my own exposure to the works of scientists who reflect on the philosophical underpinnings of science, the emphasis on "natural" really just means "you can't assume there's things that can just go around breaking the laws of nature willy-nilly" and less specifically to excluding ideas like God.
I thoroughly enjoy your posts and way of thinking. Don't stop. Who said you can't use the scientific method? You'd just have to empirically interpret the origin of the scientific method as well. It's like this dilemma: say you believe you live in democracy (as you'd call/label it). Now say you want to study democracy in general. How could you analyze democracy without analyzing analysis made within democracies (a.k.a. analyzing yourself and why you analyze the way you do)?
the senses. the definition of science itself is understanding naturally occuring phenomena using empirical evidence; obtained, in one way, through our senses, because they accurately reflect reality.
well yes, but the only tool we possess to gather evidence to support or reject things is our senses. i.e to explain taste, we use sight, etc.
