The Scientific Irony
Post from October 31, 2017 (↻ June 17, 2019), filed under Philosophy.
The scientific method (science) makes too many assumptions (materialism, empiricism, determinism, temporality, logic, &c. pp.) and is therefore constrained to physical reality, if not only parts of that. In my mind, science is of limited (but not of no) use to our view of the world, to philosophy, and especially to metaphysics.
There is, and please share your thoughts as I have strong convictions and yet know to be quick with assertions, some quite delicate irony, however, in what science has led us to believe. Two of the root arguments, as they reach us, are quite literally:
- There’s no proof that life is not based on chance.
- Therefore, life is based on chance.
- There’s no proof that life has meaning.
- Therefore, life is meaningless.
The irony is not that these arguments, even if the premises were true, aren’t sound. The irony is not that they, when believed, are vastly impactful. The irony is not that these arguments are, indeed, immensely destructive, counter a constructive world view and a healthy psychological model of reality.
The irony is that the faith-rejecting, (dis)proof-centered enterprise of science is but based on faith.
What the scientific method does is ask for faith to reject faith.
Just as some believe that there’s a God, others believe life is all physical and explicable and meaningless.
We could go further and note how the parallel makes for a contradiction—a fact-centered world view based on belief—that’s yet not a problem because logic appears limited, too. But I don’t want to go further (I’m not even sure I can). I just want to ponder the assumptions we’re commonly making about our world—and how science seems to be a faith-based enterprise just like religion is. Everything may be, and so science really is nothing different or special or better. The problems seem to arise when we fail to recognize this.
About the Author
Jens Oliver Meiert is a technical lead and author (sum.cumo, W3C, O’Reilly). He loves trying things, including in the realms of philosophy, art, and adventure. Here on meiert.com he shares and generalizes and exaggerates some of his thoughts and experiences.
If you have any thoughts or questions (or recommendations) about what he writes, leave a comment or a message.
Science is *not* “a faith-based enterprise”. It’s a framework that lets you predict what has happened, is happening, and will happen in a given circumstance based on empirical evidence.
If you don’t have evidence, then you form a hypothesis, test, and draw a conclusion based on observations.
Religion is the opposite. You form a conclusion, test, and discard all observations that contradict your conclusion.
The result is that it can’t reliably predict anything about reality. This is why we have a multitude of religions that both contradict one another and themselves and can’t tell us anything about anything except fictional alternate realities like Heaven and Hell.
Secondly, I find the concept of using “faith to reject faith” amusing. It implies that one must apply conscious effort to reject nothingness. No such effort is required.
What requires effort is believing that Galileo was wrong and that the sun orbits the earth when all observations contradict that conclusion.
Lastly, life has no meaning in a grand sense. But one must ask: why does it matter? There’s meaning to every personal action one takes both to oneself and to others. Why is that not enough? It’s enough to me.
On November 4, 2017, 17:38 CET, lab said:
1. Science is a method for learning about the (physical) world around us by making observations, asumptions based on these observations, testing these assumptions and building theories out of this. So we agree here.
2. So the “meaning of life” would not be a topic for scientific exploration because it can’t be observed or tested.
3. If it would be - your sentence must sound more like: “There’s no proof that life has meaning; therefore I cant’s say anything about it’s meaning. More research is needed.”
I fully agree with you that science is limited (to observable* topics) but I strongly disagree that science has anything in common with religion. Religion is about believing something just because somebody told you or whatever you like to believe - even if it is utterly stupid or observable false. And because people have so strong feelings about they go out harming and killing people who do not share there beliefs. Never heard about somebody beeing killed in a scientific debate …
No, science is not just like religion is.
* today ovservation is not limited to the naked eye
Have a look at the most popular posts, possibly including:
- DRY CSS: How to Use Declarations Just Once, Effectively
- Static Site Generation with Grow: How to Set Up Syndication Feeds
Looking for a way to comment? Comments have been disabled, unfortunately.