Three a week: Science

Science is the cornerstone of the modern age, right? Three questions:

 Question 1: Can science explain everything?

There are a few deeper questions at play here.  Are there things which are non-empirical? What does an “explanation” even mean if everything is empirical (do we need some kind of mental concepts before we can have an understanding about anything, or does raw data input count)? What is this “everything” we are trying to explain? Do things exist which categorically can not be explained by such a method?

Question 2: Are their flaws in the methodology of scientific reasoning?

Are there potential gaps, or leaps of faith, involved in the scientific method? Are their assumptions which are glossed over and categorically can not be “tested” for? How sturdy is the methodology of peer review? What if your peers are all wrong? This leads to the third question:

Question 3: Can science ever lead to certainty?

Will “testing” ever yield absolute results? If we test something 100 times, and we find what we think is a correlation between two things, can we ever know with certainty what will happen the 101st time? What tests have you done which establish that empirical testing can lead to certainty?

I want to know: how much “scientific” knowledge that you possess is actually just pure trust of other people. Have you personally really controlled for all the variables at play at any given experiment? Can “trust” of “scientists” (whom you’ve never met and haven’t looked at their methodology or assumptions) ever lead to absolute certainty?

This entry was posted in Three a week. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>