Friday, March 29, AD 2024 7:17am

Science Can’t Tell You Everything

Pure insight and logic, whatever they might do ideally, are not the only things that produce our creeds.”  

—William James, The Will to Believe

Introduction

Lots of talk lately about science—science and vaccinations, science and global warming, science and…. you name it.   Unfortunately many of those who pronounce eternal truths in the name of “Science” (uppercase obligatory) have been involved with science only in “Physics for Poets” courses, if that.  It seems that the scientific judgments we encounter in the MSM are brought forth to justify political or religious opinions, without  valid scientific evidence.

So, it’s time to look at fundamentals, to see what science can truly tell us, and, more importantly, what it can’t.  In my web-book (Truth Cannot Contradict Truth, Essay 2) I have tried to show that science, which employs several modes of rational inquiry, requires both theory and reproducible empirical validation.

In this article I’ll discuss the limits of science, what it can and cannot tell us about the world we live in.  By the very nature of how science works, it is plain that there are questions science cannot answer, for example:

  • Why should science explain?
  • Where does “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences” (Eugene Wigner) come from.

To set the stage for a general discussion, let’s first look at some more specific questions that science can’t answer.

Some Questions Science Doesn’t Answer

Consider these questions (among many) about the limits of science:

  • Can knowledge of the human genome enable one to make moral choices about abortion, genetic modification of embryos, euthanasia? (See here and here for discussion.)
  • If we know that a nun meditating on the Seven Last Words of Christ has greater activity in her frontal lobe and less in her temporal lobe, does that tell us more about Christ’s salvific agony on the Cross?
  • Is our delight in the lovely  musical waterfalls of Bach’s Contrapunctus 9  (Art of the Fugue) enhanced by knowing that there are octave jumps, 2 to 1 frequency changes, at the beginning of each glissando?
  • Does our understanding of the formula E=mc² help us to decide on the morality of atom bombing a terrorist country?

I hope the reader agrees: the answers to each question is a resounding NO!

The scientific method will tell us whether scientific theories are “true” or “false”, that is to say,  whether they are confirmed by empirical tests, whether they are in harmony with the general framework of science. That is the only kind of value judgment that science can make.  It can’t be a basis for judgments about what Socrates would call “the good,” what is beautiful, what is just, what is kind.

How science works shows what science can’t do

In order to understand “what science can’t do” we need to understand how science works.  The “Lakatos Scientific Research Programme,”   gives a good description of this: a network of theories AND experimental data.

The illustration shows how feedback (arrows) between theories (inner shells), and data (outermost shell) occurs.  Fundamental theories must conform to inner core principles (e.g. symmetry, conservation laws).  Auxiliary theories (e.g. chemical bonding) are derived from fundamental theories (e.g. quantum mechanics). Theories can be modified by data.  Even core principles can be altered (Einstein’s Special Relativity theory introduced a constant speed for the propagation of electromagnetic waves—light.)

Since science requires reproducible empirical validation of hypotheses, it can not answer questions about religion. It can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a Godhead, nor the existence of the Trinity. Thus, to say that science “proves” the existence of God, is as much an error as saying it disproves that God exists. We can only say that all we learn about our world from science is in accord with the world that an omniscient and omnipotent God would create.

Moreover, it’s important to recognize that the “truths” of science change, unlike the truths of Catholic teaching.

Science does not give eternal truths

The “truths” of science change as new data emerges, new theories are proposed and validated.  When a preacher of scientism says we should put all our trust in what science tells us about the world, he displays an ignorance of the history and philosophy of science.

Theories and principles that at one time held sway are superseded by new theories needed to explain newly discovered phenomena—e.g. Caloric theory as a heat substance, disproved by Rumford’s cannon boring experiments; quantum theory to explain the Ultra-violet Catastrophe and specific heat anomalies; special relativity to explain the absence of ether drift observed in the Michelson-Morley experiments. If someone wagers that present day theories in physics will not change, take the bet…you’ve got a sure thing.

Moreover, some complicated and chaotic phenomena like weather, liquid turbulence, biological processes, cannot be explained or described completely if one proceeds only from fundamental equations and principles (e.g. Schrodinger’s equation, General Relativity field equations, the Standard Model for fundamental particles).  Phenomenological equations and generalizations are necessary to make predictions from observations (see “Tipping the Sacred Cow of Science…“).  Such phenomena have to be analyzed as emergent properties of complex interacting entities.

Science can’t answer existential questions

An important limit to science has been set by Fr. Stanly Jaki:

 “Hamlet’s question, ‘to be or not to be,’ has a meaning even deeper than whether an act is moral or immoral. That deeper meaning is not merely whether there is a life after death. The deepest perspective opened up by that question is reflection on existence in general. In raising the question, ‘to be or not to be,’ one conveys one’s ability to ponder existence itself. In fact every bit of knowledge begins with the registering of something that exists. To know is to register existence. But this is precisely what science cannot do, simply because existence as such cannot be measured.[emphasis added].”
Fr. Stanley Jaki, The Limits of a Limitless Science., p.30.

What this means is that science can not explain itself. Science can not show why it gives us a partial picture of the world expressed mathematically.  The only justification for this success is empirical—it works!

If science can’t answer this deep question, why we or the universe are here, why should we expect it to tell us how we should live?

Can science tell us how to Live?

“Knowledge of physical science will not console me for ignorance of morality in time of affliction, but knowledge of morality will always console me for ignorance of physical science.”
Blaise Pascal, “Pensees,” #23

Now, back to the question, “Can science tell us how to live?  One  proponent of scientism would answer “Yes” to this question.  In his book, “The Big Picture,” Sean Carroll proposes “Poetic Naturalism” as a foundation for leading a moral life.  I won’t repeat my rebuttal (given in the linked article) to his proposition, other than to cite his own argument that God (the 12 Step “Higher Power”) is required as a basis for morality:

As Abraham learned, having an absolute moral standard such as God can be extraordinarily challenging.   But without God, there is no such standard [emphasis added] and that is challenging in its own way …Nature alone is no help. as we can’t extract ought from is;  the universe doesn’t pass moral judgments.”   

Sean Carroll, The Big Picture, p. 495

The phrase “we can’t extract ought from is” says it all.

Moreover, science is without purpose.  Teleology or Purpose, one of the Aristotlean/Thomistic Causes, is a no-no for science.  Why are we here?  What is the meaning of it all, without God?  Or, as Sherlock Holmes (Conan Doyle) put it:

“ ‘What is the meaning of it, Watson?’ said Holmes solemnly as he laid down the paper. ‘What object is served by this circle of misery and violence and fear? It must tend to some end, or else our universe is ruled by chance, which is unthinkable. But what end? There is the great standing perennial problem to which human reason is as far from an answer as ever. ‘”

Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventure of the Cardboard Box

To find the answer to this “Why” question, we turn to  Catholic Teaching, as in the Baltimore Catechism (Article 3):

3. Why did God make us?

God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven.

I rest my case.

Note

*To establish my credentials (to an extent), please see “About the Author.”  I’ll add that I’ve done science: headed research groups, refereed papers, served on granting agency review boards. But it wasn’t until I retired from 55 years of active work that I started to read about the history and philosophy of science, and reflect on how science works.

  

0 0 votes
Article Rating
2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael Dowd
Michael Dowd
Tuesday, September 7, AD 2021 5:19am

Science in many quarters has become a religion: science-ism.
Medical science has become politicized, a servant of the government, i.e., the Covid scam.
Science in some ways science is an existential threat in obedience to those who wish to control our lives: population reduction and control, i.e., The Great Reset.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Tuesday, September 7, AD 2021 6:06am

Like everything in rump America, it’s about money and control/power.

All the valid points presented in the post plus science has been subverted and now mainly is applied ideology and mercenary/paid-for support for massive lies intended to impoverish ordinary Americans and to enrich favored elites and oligarchs, e.g., the climate change/green graft hoax.

[Paraphrasing Sheldon Cooper] That’s why I have no respect for science.

A comment by an academic: “. . . getting grants, getting published, integrity and searching for truth is very low on the priority list.”

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top