Science Defined

Did you know that science is disciplined experience?

Is that a valuable insight? Yes, because experience cannot prove anything. Experience is developing knowledge.

The only science where things can be proved is mathematics. Mathematics exists independently of physical reality. In our physical reality, no proofs exist, just experience.

If you hear anyone say that [whatever] is a scientifically proven truth, then you may be sure that person is confused and off-track. It just does not work that way.

Take a look at particle physics, a really cool science. Anyone who learned their basics at an academic level 50 years ago is completely lost in modern particle physics. Particle physics is not the ultimate truth. If it were, it would not have been transformed beyond recognition in 50 years. It is developing knowledge. Or, if you will, disciplined experience.

Different kinds of science

There are different kinds of science. In this post we mainly deal with natural science in a broad sense.

Even within natural science you may differentiate between operative and historical science. Operative science is concerned with the current state of affairs. It means you can do experiments and see what happens. Historical science deals with things that happened just once. Experiments are excluded. What you can do is collect remains and other clues in order to deduce a plausible explanation.

They are, of course, interdependent—operative and historical sciences.

Operative science: Wood anemones

Here is a fully made-up and simple-minded example intending to illuminate the predicament of science. It involves wood anemones —cherished springtime symbols of Sweden.

Assume that I, as a future biologist, decided to study wood anemones. In springtime, I go out to collect one thousand of them. When I return to the lab, I find that all of them are white. To be confident, I repeat this little expedition another two seasons. Three springtimes, three thousand wood anemones. White, all of them are white.

As a fledgling scientist, I now fancy I have proved that wood anemones are white. With this valuable research contribution, I start out writing my dissertation. It takes time. Springtime arrives, yet again. No harm collecting additional data, so I venture out once more. The first wood anemone I find is pink! My scientific work deflates like a balloon pricked by a needle. The project gets delayed and the Swedish authority for student grants can be heard growling in the background.

There are a number of morals to this story.

• Three thousand unanimous observations do not constitute proof.
• There was no way to predict that I lacked an important observation.
• One single observation may disprove three thousand others.
• Counter examples may be exasperating and cause problems, but after all, this is how science progresses.

Pink wood anemones exist. Indirectly, it made the student grant authority nervous. It has nothing to do with biology, but it affected my career. Scientists do not live off thin air.

Historical science: Resurrection of Jesus

Throughout history, people have noted that somebody who dies is dead. Countless observations have combined into a well-founded experience: a dead person does not come to life again.

The Bible claims that Jesus Christ was executed, laid in a grave, and rose again. Paul, one of the New Testament authors, even asserts that this is crucial to the Christian faith.

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
1 Chorinthians 15:17-19

Some would call that a natural law: dead people do not rise again. Hence, they say, Jesus cannot have risen. Thinking is free.

Alternatively, one may claim that even what we call a natural law really is only a summary of our experience. In this case, our experience is that the dead do not come to life. However, our experience lacked a crucial observation, namely, that Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead.

In my view, the latter alternative is scientific logic. It is not scientific logic to assume that experience, even if well-founded, is ultimate truth that controls nature and makes deviations impossible.

Naturally, groundbreaking events require strong evidence. Evidence for a historical event are always up for discussion.

Science as sociology

A completely different aspect of science is how a theory gets accepted. It is a sociological, gradual process.

It may start out with some researchers, Alice and Bob, making a discovery and beginning to collect evidence in support of their idea. They present their materials in an internal seminar at their own institution. Participants need some time to digest the idea, but finally somebody thinks it is valuable and ought to be presented at an international conference. At the conference, Alice and Bob have the opportunity to describe their work to a much wider, multinational audience.

Given some time, it becomes apparent if their idea was well-received. Feedback begins arriving from science colleagues locally and internationally. They may have to correct some details. Finally, they write and get an article accepted by a renowned scientific magazine.

Of course, their idea may actually get wiped out in any of these steps, sending them back to start over again.

Acceptance is measured by counting the number of other researchers who refer to Alice and Bob and their work. Success is having many such citations. Their work becomes a standard and a starting point for many others—for a time. Additional findings always appear over time, taking the original idea further, becoming the new standard that gets the citations.

Mathematics is, as we pointed out, the only science where anything can be proven. On closer examination, even that may be a sociological process. A mathematical proof may be so complex that it needs time to gain acceptance. Perhaps only a few people have the capacity to review the entire proof. Others must rely on those pioneers.

It would be very strange for researchers to talk about their findings as truths when relating them to other researchers. They know that degree of acceptance is as far as you get. Sometimes academic conflicts erupt when disjoint theories get accepted by different camps.

Science as religion

In spite of everything noted above, you may still hear that some scientific theory is supposed to be proven as truth. It may be a way to deflect a fact-based discussion.

Science elevated to truth is often followed by religious assertions. Deviating observations are treated as blasphemy. Careers, reputations, and entire institutions may have been founded on a theory. Self-interest, having little to do with science, is one of several possible reasons behind defensive reflexes resembling religious behaviour, some sharing the characteristics of the Inquisition.

Foundations of science

The line of reasoning up to this point has taken several assumptions for granted despite the fact that they are not all that obvious, especially upon closer inspection.

We have taken for granted that our sensory organs combined with our brains form a reliable scientific instrument. We also take for granted that observations and reasoning lead up to the same conclusions regardless of the person. Why would that be obvious?

We have taken for granted that we live in an ordered world worth exploring, not chaos. We also often take for granted that the natural laws we now observe have not changed since the beginning of the universe. What is the reason behind that assumption?

To an inquisitive mind, scientific research may be so interesting and outright fun that these questions, however basic, are considered only in passing.

The biblical worldview is optimistic regarding these aspects. It has been seminal in liberating classic scientists to make groundbreaking discoveries. It is no coincidence that modern natural science emerged in Christian Europe.

Finally, today there are many who claim that natural science must be free from metaphysical assumptions. This is in itself a metaphysical assumption. The claim thus contradicts itself and is useless as the basis of logical reasoning.

Summary

Science is disciplined experience founded on observations. It is impossible to tell if significant observations are missing. Science may be eminently useful, but is still developing knowledge.

Science is also sociology. Theories are accepted gradually in a social context.

Science should not be confused with truth—it usually ends up as religion.

There is a valid philosophical question as to why we assume that reliable science is possible at all.