The problems with science
I’m going to start off by asking a simple question: What is science? Some might say it’s the only way to arrive at knowledge. But science only analyzes existing concepts, it is widely known that philosophy is the art of concept creation, and it’s not until a concept is declared by philosophy, when a scientific field spawns to study it.I’m going to start off by asking a simple question: What is science? Some might say it’s the only way to arrive at knowledge. But what questions does science answer? Science only analyzes existing concepts, and there is no scientific research before a concept is created. It is widely known that philosophy is preoccupied with concept creation, and it’s not until a concept is declared by philosophy, when a scientific field spawns to study it. What if science relies on philosophy to exist?
I’m going to start off by asking a simple question: What is science? Some might say it’s the only way to arrive at knowledge. But what questions does science answer? Science only analyzes existing concepts, and there is no scientific research before a concept is created. It is widely known that philosophy is preoccupied with concept creation, and it’s not until a concept is declared by philosophy, when a scientific field spawns to study it. What if science relies on philosophy to exist?
Science is nothing more than the gradual progress and discoveries, based on previous work, and we can describe the source of our current understanding of science, as the product of a collective mind of scientists working together, but in different timelines. Albert Einstein did not come up with relativity from scratch, the concept of time was already there. Isaac Newton based his absolute space and time theory on top of Johannes Kepler’s work, and so on. We make knowledge rather than discovering it.
Every individual who had a new idea struggled getting acknowledgment from the community. Galileo Galilei was condemned not just by the Church, but by the scientific community too. Einsteins relativity theory was rejected by most physicists at first, and Einstein himself would not accept anything in quantum theory, no matter how many individuals supported it. Thomas Edison was committed to DC current, and considered Teslas AC unsafe for years. Maybe we should be more open minded if we don’t want to fall into the same trap, and repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
Now let’s switch our focus on the scientific method.
The scientific method was pioneered by three philosophers: René Descartes, Francis Bacon, and Galileo Galilei. They didn’t base the validity of a system on whether it’s true or not, all those philosophers were never to arrive at an absolute truth. But what they did, and what we always did, is to create ontological systems, devised of concepts, that in turn help bring order to the chaos of reality.
Philosophy can give us the tools, and it can offer us a window into a different way people bring order into the world, a different set of concepts, answering a different set of questions about the chaos of reality.
Galileo Galilei had a series of specific tests that would let experimenters confirm his laws with their own senses, he believed that independent confirmation is the ultimate way of verifying facts.
Francis Bacon believed that nature was by default chaotic, and he wanted to understand and control the chaos of the natural by creating ontological frameworks, that in turn helped other people to better understand reality. He believed that knowledge is acquired through first-hand experiences, and this ment testing answers to important questions without relying on the words of other philosophers.
René Descartes thought logic and rationality is the best way to arrive at knowledge. He believed you could break and deconstruct every problem in smaller pieces, or in more understandable questions and then doubt them. He believed that by doubting everything, he would arrive at absolute knowledge. René Descartes then arrived at the conclusion that the only thing he can be sure of, it’s his own mind, or as he put it, “I think, therefore I am“. He also believed that our senses are unreliable, and cannot be trusted to verify knowledge, but what if he was wrong about that?
What if we can indeed use our senses to verify reality?
After all, we can refine our senses to give better results. Take for example the job of a sommelier, he is specialized in wine, and can distinguish between specific wine types. Not everyone can do it, you would need to train your taste. Maybe we could retain information from our senses, repeat our experiments as we sharpen our senses, then we could notice changes in patterns, and after that find some kind of consistency as we make more progress.
I’m going to use an argument I used before on this website: everything on a large scale can be replicated or simulated on a smaller scale. Remember this statement now, it’s very important.
Everything emerged out of the human mind seems to have its blueprint, a pattern visible everywhere, and on all levels of understanding. By reversing this idea, we could say that every blueprint, or visible pattern on the micro-scale, can be traced back to reveal the bigger picture.
The role of science, like any other structure emerged from the human brain, is to describe reality. Philosophy creates ontological frameworks to help individuals grasp reality, and science creates formulas to do just the same thing.
What if absolute knowledge is verifiable on all levels of understanding? One could explain a complex formula in a simple statement, or for example one could see a falling apple, and deduct that there’s some kind of force involved, and then call it gravity. Another example would be noticing that time passes faster when you’re having fun, and then say that’s relativity.
Now let’s focus on science.
We can now see patterns in all the different fields of science, and because science itself is divided, and it has lots of branches, it can be very difficult to see the bigger picture.
Another idea is that everything inside a structure can verify itself, you cannot verify chemistry with biology, or mathematics with astronomy. You can only verify math with more math, or chemistry with more chemistry. All of them are mere structures, and not everything inside the structure has to be right in order to verify itself. Let’s take language for example, if you look up the definition of a word in the dictionary, you will only get more words to describe it.
What if I were to tell you that arriving at knowledge can be made not only by running experiments and having observations, but rather by actually experiencing what it is that we need to know? What if all that science does, is to confirm itself? What if science is only making a filler knowledge, instead of discovering true knowledge
Maybe we should think about the entire history of philosophy or science as a process of creation, rather than discovery. Could it be, that all our mind does, is just trying to figure out reality? And isn’t reality just our sensory input?
The scientific method is unreliable, it relies more on observations of others and less on personal experience.
I was looking up some information about the scientific method, and heard some people saying that there is more than one way to make knowledge.
Science is being referred to more as a religion and less as a field of study nowadays, I was having a couple of random discussions, and certain individuals kept bringing up science as a way to back up their argument, but there is a reason they call them theories. Science is not settled. Any current knowledge can be proven wrong, unless it has a strong link to reality, and reality is all that we can perceive through our senses, and our senses can be refined with practice. What does that say about reality?
Now, reality as you know it, is defined only by yourself. The best allegory to describe this is the highway: every individual is driving its own car, and their personal tailored reality is defined by what is inside the car. They can look outside of it, and they can see others, but they will only pay close attention to what is inside their own car, or at the traffic signs. You could be living in a completly different universe from the person passing you by.
To be clear, I’m not discrediting science alltogether. I’m just pointing out some of it’s flaws and shortcomings.
If you want to discover more, feel free to listen to my spotify playlist here (YouTube alternative here), or you can also access it from the menu. It is built to a structure, and it’s better if you play it in order, the message is in there. Now, read the italics, and do not think like you have to follow only one artist in there. Nobody is perfect, and they don’t know everything. I repeat, the playlist has a structure specially made by me.