Genna Gan

For some people science is the supreme form of all knowledge. Is this view
reasonable or does it involve a misunderstanding of science or of knowledge?

In today’s world, scientific facts and discoveries seem to be the driving force
behind our actions and decisions in life. My mother chooses to buy a particular
brand of washing detergent over another as the package tells her that the
detergent is “scientifically proven” to remove stains more effectively. My father
buys Omega-3 eggs for our household because food scientists from Canada
recently published a research article about the health benefits of omega-3 fatty
acids. Thousands of people fly across the globe everyday in airplanes and cars
due to the advancements of physics. With ever increasing scientific
breakthroughs we as knowers need to think about whether a claim backed up
scientific evidence is necessarily “true” and whether science provides better
explanations and deeper understanding of the world compared to other areas of
knowledge. In this essay I will be considering the natural sciences as opposed to
human sciences. The knowledge issues I will be covering include inductive logic
in the natural sciences, the evolutionary nature of science and appreciation and
understanding of different areas of knowledge.

Logic and reasoning is often regarded as a more consistent and credible way of
obtaining new understanding of a subject matter compared to emotion and
perception. Logic is often used in the fields of natural sciences and mathematics.
However there are two kinds of logic, deductive and inductive logic and it is in
this that we see differences between natural sciences and mathematics. An
argument is said to be deductive if the truth of the conclusion is a logical
consequence of the premise. When using the deductive method, we begin with
an axiom, a proposition that is not proved but considered self-evident. Its ‘truth’
is taken for granted but serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring
other theory dependent truths. For example, many Euclidean axioms serve as a
basis for the many geometrical theorems we use in mathematics today.
Accepting that a triangle has 3 sides and 3 internal angles that always add up to
180⁰ allow mathematicians such as Pythagoras to create new theorems by the
rigid application of deductive logic to these axioms.

However in the natural sciences Galileo and his contemporaries realized that it
was incredibly difficult to determine indisputable statements about the way the
world works. Scientific axioms cannot be created in order to logically construct a
logical system of how our world operates. In fact Galileo realized that it should
be the goal of science, not the starting place, to draw conclusions via the
inductive method of investigation. Hence the scientific method was created
which involves the collection of data through observation and investigation with
a goal of finding a few powerful statements about how nature works (laws and
theories). Using the scientific method, scientific “truths” are induced. For
example, from a series of observations at sea level, samples of water freeze at
0⁰C (32⁰F). It seems valid to infer that the next sample of water would do the
same or that in general water at sea level freezes at 0⁰C. It is here that we
encounter the “Problem of Induction”, first introduced by David Hume in the mid-
Genna Gan

18th century and further explored by Karl Popper two centuries later. This
problem calls into question all empirical claims made in everyday life or through
the scientific method. No matter how many observations are made on the
freezing temperature of water at sea level, the next sample of water that freezes
merely adds to the series of observations. It is not certain, regardless of the
number of observations that water always freezes at 0⁰C at sea level. To be
absolutely certain, it must be known that the law of nature is immutable. These
observations do not establish the validity of inductive reasoning, except
inductively. In other words observations that inductive reasoning has worked in
the past do not ensure that it will always work.

As a knower, this problem leads me to question the understandings I obtain

through science. If scientific theories are discovered inductively then surely
science cannot “prove” an idea, but can only disprove ideas through new
discoveries. Science operates on the assumption that a particular scientific
understanding is “true” until proven otherwise. The basis of the scientific method
is that if an idea conflicts with what happens in nature then the idea must be
changed or built upon. Therefore, though scientific advancements have greatly
benefited mankind for many centuries I do not agree with the belief of some
people’s that the understanding provided by the natural sciences is superior to
the other forms of “knowledge” we can obtain from the various other areas of
knowledge. As we have explored the scientific method and problem with
inductive knowledge we know that science is ever changing and constantly
evolving. New observations and discoveries are made every day therefore we
have to constantly bear in mind that a single idea backed up by a particular
observation may be changed or falsified entirely in time to come. How much
‘trust’ can we then have in our scientific comprehension? An example that can
illustrate the absence of absolute scientific “truth” is the use of the drug
Thalidomide in the late 1950s as an antiemetic that can help pregnant women
overcome morning sickness. When the drug was experimentally tested what was
observed that the pregnant woman experienced reduced morning sickness and
could sleep better when they consumed Thalidomide. Based on this observation
scientists induced the benefits of Thalidomide. However in compliance with the
evolutionary nature of science further tests and experiments showed that
Thalidomide caused severe birth defects to the babies the mothers were
carrying. Again this conclusion was drawn based on observations made after the
babies were born. These effects outweigh the benefits and the prescription of
this drug was banned.

Science is falsifiable. There is a logical possibility that an assertion can be shown

false by an observation or physical experiment. Karl Popper said that a
hypothesis or theory is only scientific if it is falsifiable. For example, the
statement “all men are mortal” is not falsifiable since no finite amount of
observation can demonstrate its falsehood. However “all men are immortal” is
falsifiable by the presentation of just one dead man. Our certainty of what
science tells us is therefore compromised when we realize that something we
believe to be “true” today could be falsified tomorrow. Something which was
once deemed beneficial could be tomorrow observed to be harmful.
Genna Gan

Due to this, different forms of understanding obtained through the other Areas of
Knowledge may be of a greater value to some people. Because of the subjective
nature of fields of study such as ethics and the arts, “knowledge” in such areas
can never be falsified. As ethics and art develop over time, previous ideas are
not refuted as seen happening with natural sciences. For example, in Europe
between the years of 1600 to 1750 Vivaldi, Handel and Bach dominated the
music industry in what was the Baroque period. However 400 years later pop and
R&B music are more favored among today’s generation. The introduction of this
new age music does not in any way falsify baroque music, or prove it to be
“invalid” in the understanding of music as an art form. There is a greater room
for opinions and two clashing ideas can exist simultaneously and appeal to
different people. This is not the case in the natural sciences, so should the
“knowledge” we obtain through the natural sciences be placed of greater
importance? I think that the most valuable form of understanding is one that is
subjected to my own personal inner beliefs and values. Subjective ideas that
could not be falsified, such as the understanding of the love my family has for
me, my favorite food, music I enjoy and people whose company I value. Such
ideas are unique to my own ways of knowing, my own perceptions and emotions.

In conclusion I think the view that science is the superlative form of

understanding involves both a misunderstanding of science as a source of “fact”
and “truth” and a misunderstanding of personal conviction when it comes to the
different areas of knowledge. However we cannot overlook the importance of
science in the world today though we should think about to what extend does
science provide assurance to what we think we understand about our world
today.