I need to define the scientific method to present science as it is. The scientific method involves the formulation of a hypothesis to be investigated, the conduction of experiments, observation of the results, and potential modification to the hypothesis, continuing in a repeated circle as necessary. For something to lay within the boundaries of science it must be empirically testable with the senses, repeatable, and measurable. These parameters mean that many human experiences are extra-scientific and that not all events, experiences, or disciplines could be considered "scientifically supported". An example is psychology, which, at least when it deals with things like the alleged "subconscious" [1], cannot be considered an actual science because it focuses its attention on things which are not directly measurable and repeatable, much less testable through empirical observation.
Science, by the very nature of its system of empirical observations and conclusions, is incapable of proving anything, except perhaps in the present moment that a certain thing is being observed during an experiment. Science cannot prove anything about the past or the future. Since historical events cannot be repeated exactly, history is outside the domain of science and historical claims are entirely "ascientific". No scientific experiment can even prove to me that I'm not a brain in a vat or being deceived by a demon or God into perceiving false sensory stimuli, meaning that no scientific experiment can even demonstrate that the senses I use to engage in scientific pursuits are even seeing the external world as it is! Without this certain, I cannot know if science even reveals anything about external reality at all. As you hopefully see, science can prove very little, if anything at all.
Before I proceed much further, I want to point out just how intellectually pathetic scientism is. Scientism holds that science alone reveals truth, anything outside the boundaries of science either unknowable or nonexistent. To refute this in full, I could do one of two things: 1) give numerous examples of varied things which science can say nothing about, or 2) mention that science cannot verify that only science can reveal truth. Right here I will exploit scientism's major contradiction up front before elaborating on the many aspects of reality which science cannot touch or reveal. Since scientism cannot be verified by science it fails its own criterion, is objectively false, and since science has nothing to do with anything separate from the scientific method, it cannot verify or falsify anything outside of its limited boundaries whatsoever. Therefore scientism is nothing but intellectual folly and logical fallacies combined.
 |
| No scientific experiment can verify the dogma of scientism and establish that science is the greatest or only tool for discovering truth. Scientism is logically impossible. |
Amusingly, science relies on external disciplines which do not rely on it. For instance, apart from logic no one could even intelligibly record or interpret a scientific experiment. Logic is required by science, yet it is not itself science and does not require science to exist or function. Mathematics is required to be able to count and interact with scientific observations, yet mathematics, like logic, is true independent of science and does not rely on it. Science also relies on certain beliefs about the external world--that it exists and is knowable. One can know that an external world exists [2], yet no person with my limitations can prove to himself or herself much more than that about the external world. Not only are these beliefs ultimately philosophical and not strictly scientific in nature, but science also cannot actually verify them. I know some sort of external world exists through logic and immediate experience. I know I have a body through methods of verification that have nothing to do with laboratories, peer reviews, observations of nature, or scientific experiments as a whole [3]. It seems that many scientists simply assume these things (that they have bodies and that the external world is knowable)!
Whether or not morality and beauty exist are issues that are totally beyond the possible scope of science, meaning that no scientific experiment verifies or falsifies any claim at all about ethics or aesthetics--or values as a whole, including meaning. Science (or just empirical observation and experience in general--not all experience involves the scientific method) may be able to tell me that, say, physical abuse has certain effects on the bodies and wellbeing of its victims. But science cannot tell me that it is wrong to physically abuse someone. It has nothing to offer someone inquiring whether or not existence has meaning.
The very fact that truth exists is not known to me through scientific means. If truth does not exist, then neither scientism nor the scientific method can be true. The existence of truth is grasped by my rational mind, which realizes that some things are true (that I am perceiving, thinking, and so on) and that if truth did not exist it would be true that truth does not exist, a self-refuting impossibility. Truth's existence is one example of a set of facts I call axioms which cannot be false [4], known purely through the intellect and not through the senses or science.
It is reason and science itself that reveal to me that science has limitations and what those limitations are. All of this together means that science is of no usefulness whatsoever to those who want to verify a very large variety of philosophical claims. Some react to the limitations of science by claiming that if something cannot be scientifically tested or known then it cannot be true or cannot be known. This is extremely fallacious--not only do I know many things totally apart from anything involving science, but no scientific experiment demonstrates that science alone reveals truth (making scientism laughably self-refuting). The only things I know with absolute certainty have nothing to do with science; they have to do with logic and introspection, which I could respectively grasp and engage in without ever partaking in scientific experiments--without even opening my eyes or using my senses at all. Even if I were an unembodied mind with no physical body or senses, logic and introspection would still be available to me, but not science!
 |
| I know many things totally apart from science through avenues of knowledge like logic and introspection. Science requires logic and mathematics (they are separate disciplines that do not rely on science in any way), cannot verify or falsify value claims, has nothing to say about historical claims, does not reveal if future events will operate according to currently held scientific laws, cannot tell me if I am perceiving the external world as it is, and is utterly incapable of proving anything (except perhaps in the present moment). The limitations of science are many. |
Scientism may be prevalent in my culture in some ways, yet popularity does not reveal truth. If adherents of scientism challenged their philosophy, they would quickly see its intrinsic flaws, inconsistencies, and errors. And ironically, scientism is a philosophy, despite the way that some current scientists act as if science is separate from philosophy and is superior to it, when any belief system is a philosophy and philosophy encompasses so much more than science ever could, for philosophy is all-encompassing. Any adherent of scientism willing to legitimately discuss science could easily be brought to awareness that scientism is self-refuting and that things like logic, first principles, mathematics, introspection, and immediate experiences (the things knowable with absolute certainty) are not known by the scientific method, though science can only exist because of them--and that disciplines like ethics, aesthetics, theology, and history are entirely outside of the ability of science to comment on one way or the other.
Since science cannot prove anything except at most a very limited set of facts only about the present moment, the phrase "scientifically proven" is a misleading and useless phrase thrown around by the ignorant and fallacious. Only logic and math can prove anything with utter finality and immutability. Undiluted logic and its counterpart mathematics (which is basically numeric logic) is final, infallible, and accessible to everyone; science is intrinsically, vastly limited. A person who relies on science to dictate a worldview to him or her is steeped in irrationality. Science may lead to the practical benefits of everyday technology that simplifies and enhances our lives, but, as far as knowledge of reality is concerned, it is actually quite useless in many ways, and scientism is nothing but a fallacious crutch for those too irrational to admit the nature of reality.
Summary of observations:
1. Science deals only with phenomena that are empirically observable, testable, measurable, and repeatable; anything outside of these criteria is not involved with the scientific method.
2. To claim that science alone reveals truth is to make a claim that science itself cannot verify, meaning the system itself is inherently self-defeating and therefore it objectively cannot be true.
3. Many disciplines, aspects of reality, and avenues to knowledge have nothing to do with science, including, but not limited to, logic, mathematics, introspection, memory, linguistics, ethics, aesthetics, history, metaphysics, and theology.
4. Science relies on logic, mathematics, and philosophy, but none of those things rely on science. Even if I had no body or senses and thus no ability to use the scientific method, I could still know certain truths through logic, math, introspection, and philosophy.
5. Science cannot prove anything; only logic and mathematics can.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-subconscious.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-external-world.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-6-mind-body.html
[4]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-error-of-presuppositions.html
No comments:
Post a Comment