In this essay, we will consider another facet to empiricism – science – which finds wide application in virtually all academic and educational circles today. “Science has proved it,” is considered to be an infallible statement, touted by everybody, right from elementary school kids to university professors, not to mention the average man on the street. So, if somebody is told to be “not scientific,” it is a subtle insult on his intellectual credentials. In this essay, we will subject the discipline of science to logical analysis and see whether science has the credibility these people claim it does.
Epistemology Is the Issue
It is important to note that in all these essays I am writing about epistemology – about how we can gain knowledge. We have been examining various schools of thought in the history of philosophy and critiquing them. We saw how agnosticism and empiricism makes knowledge impossible. Epistemology is the controlling principle in any worldview. So, please read this current essay with that in mind, since in this essay we will be looking into whether science can discover “truth.” (It will help if you will read essays [1] and [2] again, so that you will grasp the concept of worldview more comprehensively, and can understand my critique against the epistemological “foundation” of science.)
Science has had a lot of “success,” in the sense that today we have computers, aircraft, digital cameras, microwaves, medical technology, the internet, and a host of other amenities which has made life more comfortable than what it was couple of centuries ago, or maybe, even half a century ago. But it is a grave error to confuse pragmatic success with epistemological power. The two are totally unrelated. Just because we get certain results, it does not mean that the method used to achieve them is infallible. We will analyze science from the vantage point of epistemology, and see whether it deserves the reverence which many scientists claim it does.
Defining Science
We begin by defining the terms. “Science” is a word that is too common in usage, that almost everyone using it think they know what it means. But a simple challenge for them to define it might leave them gasping for an answer. It is indeed a miserable state of affairs that the scientist, who is busy experimenting, and charting graphs in his lab, is most of the time not aware of the very foundations and limitations of his discipline. That is left for the philosophers to worry about, he thinks. This often so because, the scientist is a very “practical” guy who wants results immediately, while the philosophers are those who have a lot of time at hand, who can “theorize” about these issues. But it is this very attitude – that, we shouldn’t worry too much about theory, but focus on practical results – that makes scientists more stupid than they realize they are. I wouldn’t be surprised if that statement had jolted you. But if you share my worldview, you cannot help but affirm that “God has made foolish the wisdom of the world” (1 Corinthians 1:20). In this essay I intend to demonstrate precisely just that, so read on.
So, let’s being by defining science. This is what Merriam Webster has to say about it:
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split – more at shed
Date: 14th century
1: the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena: natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
The meaning of a word if often limited by its usage in the historical context. Today, “science” refers to the academic discipline where information is gained by the process of observing, experimenting, framing hypotheses, repeating the experiment again, cross-checking, and arriving at a conclusion. But that is not the sense in which the word was used a few centuries ago. The word “science” is derived from the Latin word scientia which means knowledge. Science, way back then, referred to an organized body of knowledge, regardless of the method of acquiring it. But it is not so it today’s context.
So, in my critique of “science,” I will be operating on the colloquial usage of the term – the third and fourth definitions given in Merriam Webster above.
The First Principle
The first principle of any worldview which starts off with science is based on observation and sensation. So, the crucial point to note is that science is based on empiricism, and I have refuted empiricism in the previous essay. So, we can dismiss science straightaway, without further ado. But, since such a big deal is made about science by the majority of the populace, it will be worth the effort to show them the chinks in the scientific armor.
There is a truism in scientific circles that they will accept something as true only when “proved” by science. It is repeated so often, and from various angles such that most school goers and college students are brainwashed with this maxim. It will take a considerable amount of reason to wipe this from their consciousness.
It can be stated without exaggeration that the first principle of the scientific worldview is that “everything should be proved by science.” But again, does this proposition justify itself? Does it satisfy the very demands it is making? Can you prove that very statement – that “everything should be proved by science” – by science? No! Worse still, can you deduce the other components of a worldview such as metaphysics, ethics, soteriology, and eschatology from such a first principle? No! Right at the level of the first principle, science collapses, but wait! I have lots more to say. Keep reading…
Observation and Sensation
The first thing to note about science is that it is based on observation, which, in turn, is based on sensations. Sensations are unreliable, which is why two people looking at the same thing, can come up with totally different conclusions. Please read the previous essay on empiricism to understand why sensations are unreliable.
If observation is SO reliable, then why do you want to repeat an experiment? Why do you want other people to repeat the same experiment? This is a subtle betrayal that your senses are not reliable, and you want to test them again.
But, how many times do you want to repeat it? Three times? Five times? Thirty-seven times? On what basis do you set the limit? Who decides, and why? That is purely arbitrary.
Also, most scientists are not content with their own experimentation. They want others to repeat them. But why? Is it because your own sensations are not reliable? If so, are the observations and sensation of the next scientist reliable? How do you know? Who decides? Do you want to call in a third person? But why should his senses be more reliable than both of yours’ put together? When do you decide where to stop?
How many people should repeat the experiment? In how many places should they repeat it? There is no rational justification for the choice that is made here. Most often for the sake of convenience, the readings and experiments are repeated three to five times, under highly selective conditions, by few or several people.
Let me illustrate what I have written above with an example which might strike you close to home. Try jogging your memory back to your high school physics lab. Take any experiment you want. I will use the simple illustration of the experiment in which we measure the focal length of a concave or convex lens. Were all the readings you got the same? Wasn’t there a variation? What does this mean? It means that your senses are not reliable. Now go and check the readings your other classmates have got. Were they the same? If you have any degree of intellectual honesty, you will say no.
Usually, the readings will be close to the actual focal length of the lens, but it is not unusual to get a reading which is far outside the “normal” range. For example, if the actual focal length was 20cm, the readings you get might be 18.4cm, 19.2cm, 17.5cm, 18.7cm, and so on. On more than one occasion, when doing this experiment several times, you might get 13.4cm, 24.5cm or something similar.
You can apply this line of reasoning to any experiment you did in high school or college – whether it is measuring the thickness of a wire using the screw gauge, checking the temperature at which salivary amylase acts, or about the color of the flame when calcium salts are burned – and you will see the unreliable nature of observation. Scientists have no explanation for this happening, which is why during calculations with the data, when they want the “results,” the eccentric readings will be left out. This is not logical acumen, but selective bias. I will write more about this shortly. So, point one is that science is based on observation, and since observation is unreliable, science is unreliable.
Induction
Next, we have to note that science is based on induction. Induction is the attempt to arrive at universal conclusions based on general instances. But induction is always a formal fallacy. By observing isolated instances one can never make a universally binding statement. This is so because, to make a universal statement, one needs all the knowledge that is possible, and that means you should be omniscient.
Take for example, the experiment whereby gravity is determined by observing a pendulum bob. By just observing the motion of a steel pendulum for a few seconds, followed by a few calculations, you cannot generously state that gravity is the same everywhere, all the time. Have you observed all the pendulum bobs in the past, present, and future? Have you observed them in all places, under conditions which differ from yours? What if you used a bob made out of lead, or a hollow copper bob filled with water or mercury? Will the readings and calculation remain the same? Will the calculation for the “gravity” you get be unanimous? Go try it out, and honestly evaluate the results.
You will find that even when using the same bob, under the same conditions, you get different readings, let alone using different material in different conditions! You see, based on couple of hours of experimentation in an air-conditioned lab, surrounded by the scientific “aura,” you cannot make a universally binding authoritative statement.
Vincent Cheung takes this one step further. In his book, Ultimate Questions, he writes this:
Some people try to rescue induction by saying that, although it cannot conclusively establish any proposition, at least it can establish a proposition as probable. But this is both misleading and false. Probability refers to “the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes.” Even if we grant that empirical and inductive methods can discover the numerator of the fraction (although I deny that they can do even this), to determine the denominator requires knowledge of a universal, and omniscience is often necessary to establish this.
Since probability consists of a numerator and a denominator, since the denominator is a universal, and since empirical and inductive methods cannot know universals, then to say that induction can arrive at “probable” knowledge is nonsense. Even apart from other insoluble problems inherent in empiricism itself, an epistemology that is based on an empirical principle cannot succeed, since empiricism necessarily depends on induction, and induction is always a formal fallacy.[1]
Asserting the consequent
Next, science cannot avoid the fallacy of asserting the consequent. In logical language it is stated as,
1. If P, then Q
2. Q
3. Therefore P
Notice the form of the argument. Premise 1 only states what will follow if P is the case. That is, if P is true, then Q will be true. But there are a number of things which can be substituted for P, and still Q will be true. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that Q will follow only from P. I will illustrate this with an example. If it is raining, the ground will be wet. The ground is wet. Therefore it is raining. However, the conclusion just does not follow from the premises. The ground can be wet due to so many reasons. A water pipe might be leaking, or a truck might have spilled water along the way.
I will use another example from my field of study. If the brain stem is damaged, then the patient will be dead. The patient is dead; therefore the brain stem is damaged. This is ridiculous! The patient can die due to various reasons. It just does not follow that the brain stem has to be damaged in all situations. He might have had a heart failure, renal failure, respiratory failure, or a massive blood loss.
Take another example from literature. If someone reads Shakespeare, he will have good command over the English language. He has good command over the English language; therefore, he has read Shakespeare. This again, is fallacious!
If the law of gravitation is true, then freely falling bodies will have constant acceleration. Freely falling bodies have constant acceleration; therefore the law of gravitation is true. Can you see the fallacious nature of this type of “reasoning”?
The scientist starts off with a hypothesis where he predicts a result. He then, performs an experiment, and he gets the result. Therefore, the smart scientist concludes, his hypothesis is true! This is the type of “thinking” that takes place in the hallowed portals of science today. Science “works” by asserting the consequence, and you cannot achieve formal syllogistic validity with such type of reasoning. It is irremediably fallacious. You cannot side-step this fact, no matter how much you try to brush it under the carpet of scientific jargon and elitism.
Equations are Arbitrary
Next, we will deal with the method by which equations are discovered. Again, let’s go back to your high school physics lab. You have dangled the pendulum bob and recorded readings till your patience is exhausted. You have a set of readings, which are different from each other. Then you take the sum of them and then divide them by the number of readings. That is then touted as the “objective” value. But why did you choose to average all the readings? Why not take the mode? Why not the median?
You see, your choice of the average was purely whimsical. That is, it was arbitrary. Your data did not dictate that choice to you. You have a set of data before you. Now what do you do with it? How do you proceed? No matter in which direction you go, the data did not direct you to do so. It is a private decision independent of the data.
And, even then, what you have is the average, and not the actual reading itself. It seems like you have thrown out all your facts (the recordings) and stick to what is not a fact (the average). So much for observation, experimentation, and the claim that science deals with “facts”! Half-baked characters, whether in the university or in the ghetto, can easily chant that “science discovers facts, science discovers facts…” again and again. But asserting something again and again does not make it true.
I have just shown you that in science, you never deal with the “facts” as they are. You twist and contort them according to your personal whims. Scientific laws are not discovered, they are always chosen according to the private fancy of the investigating scientist. The raw data does not dictate the mathematical procedure you use to arrive at your conclusions. It is done on a purely subjective basis, and cloaked as “objectivity” in academic circles. So much for the intellectual neutrality which scientists claim!
But wait! I am not done yet. We are yet to see how laws are derived. You take your “facts” and plot them on a graph. Then it is time for you to draw a line. But how do you choose? There are an infinite number of lines that can be drawn through the points on the graph. Each line will represent a particular equation. But which line do you choose? Again, that is purely arbitrary! Which line represents the “real” equation? There are infinite number of lines for you to choose from. What is the probability that you will hit the right line? It is one divided by infinity, which is…..zero. Are you shocked? I have just subjected science to strictly logical analysis and this is what emerges.
In case you are dumb enough to say that I am “biased” because of my worldview, and therefore you won’t listen to me, at least listen to what others who have nothing to do with my worldview have said. Karl Popper, a very famous philosopher of science states, “It can be shown that all scientific theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero.”[2] Albert Einstein, speaking about the real nature of the universe, said: “We know nothing about it at all…. The real nature of things we shall never know, never.”[3] Now, that was Albert Einstein for you. Bertrand Russell, who was antagonistic to Christianity all his life, said that all scientific laws are based on asserting the consequent, and thus, knowledge is impossible on the basis of science.
Ideal Situations
Finally, we have to note that all scientific laws describe ideal situations, which are never possible to attain in “real” life. Gordon Clark illustrates this point, again, with the pendulum bob.
The law of the pendulum states that the period of the swing is proportional to the square root of the length. If, however, the weight of the bob is unevenly displaced around its center, the law will not hold. The law assumes that the bob is homogeneous, that the weight is symmetrically distributed along all axes, or more technically, that the mass is concentrated at a point. No such bob exists, and hence the law is not an accurate description of any tangible pendulum. Second, the law assumes that the pendulum swings by a tensionless string. There is no such string, so that the scientific law does not describe any real pendulum. And third, the law could be true only if the pendulum swung on an axis without friction. There is no such axis. It follows, therefore, that no visible pendulum accords with the mathematical formula and that the formula is not a description of any existing pendulum.
Some might say that this might apply to physics and not to other disciplines such as sociology and biology. I do not dispute that. But that doesn’t mean you can escape from the rest of the above refutation such as the unreliable nature of observation, induction, asserting the consequent and so on. I mostly chose examples from physics because it is foundational to other experimental disciplines. Coming to the point, in science you deal with ideal situations which are impossible to replicate in real life. You cannot have absolute vacuum, frictionless surfaces, and tensionless strings. If this is so, then on what basis do scientists so cockily assert anything? Purely on the basis of their imagination. Nothing else. What passes for “knowledge” in scientific circles is nothing more than imagination, which is neatly re-packaged as “facts.” In fact, the present day structure for benzene, which is used all over the world in all chemistry textbooks was based on a dream which Kekule (a German chemist) had where he saw a snake engulfing its tail by its mouth. And today, his dream is the basis for chemical equations involving benzene all over the world!
Tissue of logical fallacies
John Robbins calls the scientific method “a tissue of logical fallacies.” Nothing can be more appropriate. Science can give you results, but not truth. So when people say things like “something is true only when proved by science,” they do not know what they are talking about or asking for. “Scientific truth” is an oxymoron. Science can never rid itself of the fallacies which are a part and parcel of its foundational methodology.
There is no point hoping that sometime in the future, we will discover truth through science. As long as you are stuck with empiricism, induction, and asserting the consequent, there is no way you can get out the epistemological abyss. No way! (In case you didn’t hear me the first time.)
But it works!
“But science works!” you say. I heat food with microwaves, fly in planes, send e-mails and so on. It “works”! But you have only succeeded in telling me what science can do. You have not told me how it can discover truth. Science can achieve a lot of pragmatic ends, and its function stops right there. It can NEVER furnish you with truth. This explains why false theories have also “worked.” Long before the theories of relativity, Newtonian mechanics was in vogue and it “worked.” So, when Einstein challenged scientific orthodoxy with relativity, they criticized him severely. But today, physics is unthinkable without relativity! Did Newtonian mechanics “work”? Yes! Do the theories of relativity “work”? Oh, yes! But how can contradictory theories both “work”? Well, welcome to “science”!
Let me again use an example from medicine. About fifteen or twenty years ago doctors stated that beta-blockers (a drug meant for reducing high blood pressure) should never be used in heart failure. So, in your board exams if you had mentioned that you can, in fact, use them, the examiners would have flunked you. Now the medical community recommends the same drug for heart failure with a big smile! You ask, what the heck is going on? (You now realize what a BIG stake you make on your doctor!) In fact, if you are relying too much on medical technology, just read up on the history of medicine and you will actually discover that the “trial and error” method was at the crux of the whole enterprise! Your doctor might not aware of all this. Maybe you should wake him up!
Scientific Mythology
The false conceptions of science which are embraced by scientists and other “intellectuals” is similar to the wide-eyed fascination with which children listen to mythological stories. The essence of mythology is to take you out of your humdrum world and promise you something which it cannot deliver. In the beginning, kids do not realize this, but later on, during adolescence, they grow out of it. The same way, the problem with the big kids – the scientists – is that they never even come close to intellectual puberty, let alone mature after that. They keep listening and drooling, all the while hoping that science will deliver its mythological promises, which it never can.
The solution is not to discard science all together, but to realize its limits and not over-estimate it. Its time to strip the mythological elements in science which have been a part and parcel of its community for so long. Science can help us achieving practical ends. That’s all. Scientists should keep quiet after that. No matter how successfully the theories “work,” it cannot give you truth. This explains why even contradictory theories also “work.” It can never give you absolute truth, so it is always false.
Epilogue / Epitaph
All is said and refuted with regard to the scientific methodology (mythology?). We could have dismissed science straightaway since it is based on empiricism. But, since there is so much of hype created today about science and its ability to discover truth, I think it was worthwhile writing an entire essay blaspheming the god of science. I know many of you who venerate this idol called science will find my attitude to be sacrilegious. I know I might have stepped on your toes. I owe you no apologies for that. In fact, you should be glad that I exposed the falsity of your assumptions. This is the task my Master has equipped me for – to tear down unbelieving strongholds and to take every thought captive to Him (2 Corinthians 10:5). Have you believed that science gives you truth? Its time you woke up from your delusion. You should not expect something from science which it cannot deliver.
Are you having a negative reaction to what I wrote above? You can have three or four PhDs behind your name, you can stroke your chin and try to exude that elitist aura, and you can play with your gizmos, gadgets, and dials, while pretending to ignore the shakiness of your very scientific foundation. But I know where you stand, and I have exposed it to you. You can ignore all of it, and still convince yourself that you are very smart. But the truth is that you are so irrational and stupid, that your reaction seems like brute instinct, rather than careful logical deliberation. For if you had even once ounce of rationality and logical sense, you will see through the epistemologically shaky and irrational “foundation” of science. You can always fool ignorant simpletons with clichés which are asserted again and again in university circles. But if you try such gimmicks with the Ambassadors of Christ, we will turn and tear you to pieces (2 Corinthians 10:5).
Do you want to know absolute truth? With your epistemological bootstraps you cannot pull yourself out to find it. Unless the Light that enlightens every man reveals it to you, you will still remain in your epistemological void. Its time for mythology to end and Revelation to take over. “To the Law and the testimony. If they do not speak according to His Word, they have no light of dawn” (Isaiah 8:20).
[1] Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions, p 20.
[2] Karl Popper, Conjecture and Refutations, Harper and Row, 1968; quoted in Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations, p 11.
[3] Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: Life and Times; Avon Books, 1971; p. 504; quoted in Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations, p 10.
Posted by Nishanth 
Posted by Nishanth 
Posted by Nishanth 