Is science the only “way of knowing”?

Forthwith, my arguments have primarily to do with a particular persuasion, and a particular mode of thinking. This position has become the prevalent one within the scientific discipline, and in my estimation is the joining together of two separate philosophies:

Empiricism: experience and the senses are to be emphasized in truth discovery.

Positivism: the only truth that can be discovered is through strict scientific method.

For many people, positivism would simply be seen as the natural result of “empiricism,” in that empiricism (as a method) involves the process of testing a hypothesis, and establishing (or trying to establish) objectivity through evidence.

I, however, see the need list them separately so we can consider the whole equation:

Now, you might be thinking to yourself, “We’ll let’s just read Critique of Pure Reason and call it a day.” But, I find it necessary to address the specific condition of our current day, and what science has gone on to hold up as an exclusive method for knowing.

If something like Critique was sufficient, we wouldn’t be where we are today, would we?

Now, as we saw in previous sections, because we are working from a point of limitation, we are bound to ask certain questions, and are also bound to accept certain answers. We can only look for, find, and test certain kinds of information empirically. We can in turn only extrapolate certain knowledge. I believe we grossly overestimate the confidence we can place in our conclusions, especially considering that we are always evaluating from a fixed point in space, time, and consciousness.

So the crucial question we need to answer is, can the scientific method answer every why? Does every big question need to be a scientific one in order to be valid? Is science the only way of knowing? Can truth be found by other means? Does the retort, “Well, that’s not a scientific question,” have any place when trying to determine the route to take in the pursuit of what is? Many people believe so, absolutely.

I believe the only intellectually defensible position is that science is but one way knowing.

Consider this example: most physicists theorize that dark matter and dark energy exist. Yet, the “dark force” does not interact with the electromagnetic force – they are essentially invisible to each other. But, the dark force does supposedly interact with gravity. So, scientists believe we are able to infer its existence based gravity interactions with particles we can observe.

Fine. Makes sense. But let the implication really sink in: the reality of dark matter and dark energy are widely accepted by notable and brilliant physicists (and in fact, the leading theory is that they make up the majority of the Universe’s contents), but the phenomenon is something we cannot observe directly, only secondarily, and that through theoretical mathematical calculations.

Is it not reasonable then to propose that there may be other components of our Universe that do not interact at all with the forces we can observe and yet are vital to the continuance of the Universe? There would be no test or method we could use to explore such a phenomenon let alone discover that it exists at all in order that we might even postulate and bat it around in our minds.

The scientist fires back, “Well, that’s not a scientific hypothesis since we can’t test it,” to which I reply, “Thank you, that’s my ultimate point.”

What I’m advocating is a broadening of what we consider viable avenues for truth discovery. Whether science can enter the game at every turn or not is irrelevant. Entirely irrelevant. Its participation is not a governing principal of the Universe, and has no good reason to be a governing force in all matters of knowledge accumulation – we have simply said so because it is has been pragmatic (and this we have in turn done by way of induction). Science can only speak to what scientists are able to observe empirically, and what scientists are able to observe is limited and will very well remain forever limited, even in ways we are unable to discover or account for. Necessarily this means science cannot answer every “why.”

Some whys are invisible to science.

tags: philosophy, science, ways of knowing