Rationalism Is Not Anti-Science

Rationalism encompasses all of reality, as nothing is outside of reason.  Contrarily, the scientific method is incapable of providing absolute certainty or revelation about the core of metaphysics, meaning it is inescapably, sharply limited in both its epistemological and metaphysical scope.  Some who are emotionally attached to the scientific method for philosophically invalid reasons would regard reason as usurping the place of science, holding that strict rationalism is opposed to the scientific method.  This straw man fallacy persuades them that rationalism is some insidious ideology to be rejected.

Skepticism of the correspondence of scientific observations with the true external world and the future constancy of scientific laws is not only not irrational, but it is the only valid epistemological stance to hold on the matter.  Anyone who truly believes that they are certainly seeing external stimuli exactly as they are is a self-deluding fool, especially if they have been told about the logical disconnect between perceptions and many kinds of stimuli despite not realizing anything about it on their own.  The sense of touch can at least prove the existence of physical matter [1], but the senses are only useful for intaking perceptions beyond this.

Nevertheless, this in no way means that someone who sees the glaring limitations of science and rightly sides with reason over science is anti-science.  At most, it means they reject self-contradictory epistemological stances and recognize that science, unlike reason, cannot prove anything about the external world other than that one perceives it in a certain way.  It is entirely possible to toss scientism aside and even mock its adherents while still experiencing a deep fascination with science.  Whether that fascination is born out of curiosity, respect for practicality, or simply a foundational love of the sensory world, it is fully compatible with rationalism.

That science cannot verify the truth of scientific concepts does not mean it is absolutely useless.  It is indeed epistemologically useless for discovering truths that transcend perception, but it is rather useful for the practicalities of daily life.  Toothpaste, magnetism, computers, and engines are still of great practical value, even if most of these specific examples have no intrinsic philosophical significance.  It is still inevitably the case that practicality tells someone nothing about truth other than their mere perceptions, yet practicality is a necessity if one wants to survive and to do so comfortably.

Those who love practicality have reason to appreciate the scientific method, even if they have no personal concern for whether specific bodies of matter like stars or trees even exist in the first place.  However, appreciation is subjective, having nothing to do with the objective epistemological value of a thing.  Science, unlike logic, is inherently limited: all limitations on the human use of reason are epistemological limitations of humans themselves rather than of reason, which governs all things, while science hinges on reason, phenomenology, and other aspects of metaphysics and epistemology by its very nature.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html