Science Is Not an All-Knowing Entity

Believing that the universe aligns perfectly with scientific principles or that science offers comprehensive explanations is a leap of faith, bordering on idolatry. This requires a considerable amount of blind faith in the authority of scientific practitioners.

Critics of this perspective may argue that scientific theories do indeed clarify certain phenomena. This is true; humans consistently develop beliefs to make sense of the world around them. Science is merely one of many ways we attempt to understand our surroundings.

One intriguing philosophical anecdote involves Ludwig Wittgenstein, who, while observing students mockingly discuss past misconceptions about Earth's position in the cosmos, reportedly asked, “What would it look like if the sun revolved around the Earth?” The implication is that historically, those who believed in a geocentric model had a rational basis for their view. We label occurrences as “sunrise” and “sunset” because those terms accurately depict our observations. Thus, using those terms to describe celestial movements is entirely reasonable.

Proponents of science may contend that scientific understanding evolves over time, and this is also accurate. Humans adapt their beliefs in response to new evidence, and science is no exception; it too evolves and changes.

False Prophets and Misconceptions

However, when scientific theories shift, it is often due to prior mistakes. Science can provide incorrect explanations, and scientists are prone to errors in interpretation and prediction. Contrary to popular belief, science and its practitioners are not infallible.

I do not oppose science; rather, as a philosopher, I feel compelled to explore complexities and challenge misleading beliefs. I’m not afraid to call out the inconsistencies present in scientific discourse, which, like any human endeavor, is rife with fallacies.

In fact, science is no more or less flawed than other human pursuits. Yet, the assertion that “science is my religion” implies that science is the ultimate source of truth, transforming it into a kind of fundamentalism, or scientism. This ideology suggests that science holds a monopoly on knowledge, rendering it unquestionable.

Advocates of science may argue that its success in addressing universal questions sets it apart from religion. Yet, this sounds strikingly similar to religious claims of superiority. Such elitism dismisses other valuable avenues of inquiry.

Recognizing Science as One Tool Among Many

Science should be regarded as one approach to understanding the world, not the sole method. It is a tool designed for specific tasks, and like any tool, its effectiveness is contingent on the context in which it is applied.

Belief systems aim to elucidate phenomena and develop practical solutions. Science handles a particular subset of sensory experiences, grounded in specific assumptions, yielding a limited array of insights. Limiting oneself to science as a singular belief system constrains one’s understanding, especially when diverse methodologies exist.

Science: A Human Endeavor

Both science and religion serve as reflections of humanity. Each discipline embodies our imperfections and biases. Scientism often operates under the illusion that science reveals a higher truth, which can be a misleading notion. Humans tend to enter situations with preconceived notions, inadvertently skewing their perceptions to fit those biases. This tendency permeates all human experiences—be it religion, philosophy, art, or science.

Philosopher Edmund Husserl noted that scientists often overlook their own influence on their work, striving for objectivity while failing to acknowledge their biases. While diligent scientists aim for clarity, it’s vital to remember that personal biases inevitably “contaminate” experimental setups. Despite critiques from the scientific community regarding philosophical skepticism, all of us—scientists and philosophers alike—should engage in continual self-examination.

My reflections on these themes were prompted by recent research indicating that humans did not originate from a single region in Africa. This revelation illustrates how human assumptions can shape scientific discourse.

Thomas Kuhn posited that science is not a linear progression of rational thought but rather a human endeavor characterized by extended periods of resistance to new ideas. Only when confronted with overwhelming evidence do some scientists shift their perspectives, a reality echoed in Planck’s observation. This pattern is inherent to human behavior, including that of scientists.

The long-standing belief in a singular origin of Homo sapiens reflects an entrenched dogmatism. One might wonder how much influence the Abrahamic religions’ creation narratives have had on scientific interpretations regarding human origins. Such simplified belief systems appeal to our desire for straightforward explanations, which can hinder the acceptance of more complex truths. Scientific resistance to evidence that contradicts these narratives illustrates this phenomenon.

Reality is intricate, chaotic, and multidimensional, and it does not conform to our desires or expectations. While we may theorize endlessly, the universe remains unaffected by our wishes. However, we can change our perspectives when we confront the universe differently. Recognizing our errors can yield greater insights than simply clinging to the notion that we are right.

In summary, science is intricate because reality is intricate. Truth serves as a tool for humans to navigate their challenges, which shift over time. Scientists should engage in inquiry rather than idolization, focusing on questioning rather than merely seeking answers. Science is a valuable instrument for knowledge, yet it should not be the only tool we employ in our pursuit of understanding.