The Problematic Definition of SCIENCE
A Life-changing read.
The problem with the modern definition of science is one of those none-apparent problems that infiltrate the subconscious mind and quite literally narrows his logical reasoning and search for truth. Regardless of how self-contradictory to common sense this may sound, let me first explain my position. The problem with Science didn’t start early with the rise of its usage in the 1300s, since the Latin word “Scienti” was used to describe ‘broad knowledge’ of a particular topic; The knowledge of God or what God knew, However, after the 1600s the word went through several definitions, only to finally settle with the most frequent use, That problematic definition of Science, which is: the study of the observable facts of the universe.
…… And that’s when the problem started..
Today we use a similar definition, “Science: is the intellectual systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical & natural world through observation and experimentations.” This definition sheds light on the heart of the problem, but to point it out we’ll need a few consecutive logical reasoning. Science is (supposedly) a way to find out all truths about life, the universe and everything. That’s the main goal, to discover the discover the unknown, which means, the search for truth no matter how odd or unlikely it may seem. But, science in its definition presumes beforehand Three false assumptions:
The first one is that all truths are to be found within the physical universe. Yet such a premise isn’t proven by the scientific method of evidence itself. If you can’t seem to detect the illogicality within this assumption, just imagine this analogy, it would be like as if a virtual reality AI Game-character presumed that the true meaning of the game is to be found within the game itself, to collect coins or parts and save the princess and kill the evil character. But, that is a logical fallacy, the true meaning of anything canNOT be found within that entity itself. Because we all know that the true meaning of the game is to entertain the objective outsider/player. Yet the Al character will think and presumed that the true meaning of the game is to be found within it, with in the coin collection, or quests, or whatever the artificial goal may be. All those goals (and everything in this V-Reality) are not the true meaning behind this game universe. It can never be. Because you can never find the absolute meaning or purpose of an entity from the entity itself, you can only get close to the meaning, but never assume it perfectly correctly. But science doesn’t follow this logic, it states that the whole truth is to be found in the physical nature world by observation and experimentation. It. assumes that the Al game character can find all truths within the VR game by searching the Game universe , Which is false, because the game universe only supply information about the game steps, not about its purpose or anything, because most information lie beyond the universe of that entity. For example, the Al game character will not think of its world as a “virtual reality” but will think of it as an “actual realty”. And even if he thought about the idea of his world being a virtual reality, he will still not be able to prove it with the limited definition/method of science. What if WE ARE those AI game characters are we still going to assume that the meaning of the game is by playing the game?.. Are we still going to assume by the definition of science that all truths and meanings and meanings can be found within the physical universe or reality? ….of course not. We shouldn’t.
The logical truth that contradicts science is that “You cannot find all truths for an entity by searching that very entity” just like you can’t find the truth or meaning of a rock by looking at it or examining it, you can only presume that it’s nothing and does nothing but being a collection of elements, and you presume it has no farther meaning, truth, or purpose. And you do the same thing with the universe, which is no different than a rock, because the universe is indeed just a collection of elements, so you presume that its truth & purpose is not more than to explode, burn, harden, orbits, and explode again. So you satisfy yourself with this half-truth and presume by the definition of science that there’s nothing more to it.. This is.. until you find out something more about it, and realize you were wrong all this time by being misled by its half-truth. And…Yet you never learn that lesson. You just think you learned it, but you never implement it in your thoughts and perception.
This is the implication of believing the first assumption from the definition of science. “That all truths can be found in the physical universe.”
The second assumption from the definition of science is that science presumes that there does not exist realm beyond our physical realm, it assume the meta-physical realm does not exist.. “Why?” Because science only acknowledge the existence of the “physical natural universe” what can be “observed and tested.” Therefore, the metaphysical world has no place in the science definition, so it’s perceived as not scientific, and therefore falsely presumed as nonexistent, and does the same illogical contradiction, which is that, it presumes it doesn’t exists. without following the scientific method, without providing proof for such a presumption. So basically, The science definition itself does not follow its own scientific method when presuming with observable or experimental observable, instead, it assumes out of complete ignorance and no proof to prove such a presumption. Which is (definitely) contradictory to the scientific method. The implication of this presumption limits the mind only to the physical realm and narrows your perception to the natural universe, making you presume that there does not exist any realm beyond this observable universe.
The third and last assumption is that the scientific definition assumes that “If we can’t observe something or test it, then it doesn’t exist, because it’s not scientifically detected.” The flaw with this assumption is that it’s contradictory to reality and known truths and facts. For example, let’s sat you and I saw each other face-t- face in a hallway, and I entered a room and then you entered the room right next to it, then a man closed the door behind us and questioned you about my existence, that man never saw me enter the room next door. So you will not be able to prove such an obvious truth. Because if you truly followed the scientific definition and tried to prove me with experiments and observations, you will not be able to deliver that proof to the other man that I exist in the other room, because you can’t hear in the other room behind the wall, and you can’t observe me because there’s no windows between the two rooms, and you can’t detect me in anyway. So, you have no proof that I existed. And if you truly followed the scientific definition, you’ll say to the man “because I failed on my part to prove the existence of the man in the other room with observations and experimentation, He doesn’t exist according to the scientific definition of science, and I follow the definition of science, therefore he doesn’t exist.” And so, you lie to yourself about a truth you saw with your own eyes, the truth that I entered the room next to you, and you believe such a lie because you followed the flawed scientific method. So obviously it should be clear to you now that Science is not a search for all truths. It’s way limited and constrained than that, it’s the search for the few detectable truths only, the ones that can be verified. Which clearly means, What WE fail to verify (by our own limitation and shortcomings) does not exist. ….
To explain this assumption/idea more obviously, think of the whole observable universe.
. . . .
Everyone, including you, will blindly presume that that picture is the picture of the whole universe, but it’s not. That’s only the *OBSERVABLE* universe, only the universe we were able to observe and detect by our own scientific tools and technologies, and such tools are limited and short, because there actually exists many MANY more stars and galaxies beyond the edge of this observable universe, it’s just that we were not able to observe or detect them by our limited tools and scientific technologies simply because they’re far away. And because we fail to observe, test, or detect them, science presumes again that such stars don’t exist at the edge of the universe. “Why?”.. Because they are too far away to detect or observed. So we concluded -by the definition of science- that.. since they can’t be detected by physical observations and experimentations, then they don’t exist in the scientific spectrum.
And that’s the flaw with Science..
It’s too limited to our own limitations. ..
The implication of believing in this last assumption is..a growing percentage of Atheism. Which explains the increasing number of atheistic and agnostic scientists in every Science field. It’s Not because “Atheists are smarter, and that’s why they dominate the Science field.” It’s factually because they follow the flawed scientific definition literally. They deduct that god is not out of atoms, not a physical entity, by a metaphysical entity beyond the constrains of this matter-based universe, and because he’s not a physical entity he can’t be observed, tested or detected, which means he doesn’t follow the limited definition of Science, which gives them the assumption that God is not scientific, concluding therefore that.. He doesn’t exist, that he is not real, but a myth. So atheists populate the science fields not because all atheists are smart and they grow to become smart scientists, but because the ordinary scientist is forced -now or later on- to follow the scientific method when it comes to god, making him an atheist. So it’s the other way around, Not that atheists become scientists because all atheists are smart, but that the scientist becomes an atheist by force of the flawed scientific method. So, they conclude by the scientific method that God doesn’t exist at all. The problem with this illogical deduction is that they tested the physical universe by observations and experimentations to conclude that God doesn’t exist in the physical universe, which is true, but that doesn’t mean god doesn’t exist beyond the realm of the physical world. You can’t look inside a big box (i.e. universe) and conclude God doesn’t exist at all simply because he doesn’t exist in that box/universe. That’s illogical deduction. When you look for your cat around the house, do you grab a box and look inside it and conclude that it doesn’t exist (at all) simply because you couldn’t find it in that small box? No, that’s illogical, searching that box doesn’t conclude anything except that the cat you’re looking for is not in that very box, but it could well be somewhere else beyond the realm of this box. And by logical deduction when it comes to the creator, the “box of the universe” is too small for such a powerful entity, So the only logical deduction is that God is greater than the universe he created, which means he can’t exist inside it because he’s greater than it, so the only logical conclusion is that he must be outside it. The question I keep asking myself is, “Why does science assumes that metaphysical entities are nonexistent based on (lack of) evidence from the physical universe?”, they are meta-physical (beyond-physical) entities, and science have not looked beyond the physical box. So by logical deduction metaphysical entities are able to be existent only beyond the box of the physical universe, yet science still searches the “box of the physical universe” and assume that they don’t exist -at all. Exactly just like a madman searching for his cat inside a single box and concluding that his cat doesn’t exist at all because he can’t be found in that small box. …
Atheists and most scientist agree that god doesn’t exist, and I agree with them with the fact that he doesn’t exist in this physical world, but that’s doesn’t conclude by logic that god doesn’t exist beyond this physical box. Just because we are too limited to search outside it, doesn’t mean we should reach to a false default conclusion about the unknown, a conclusion that we made up. If we failed to observe or detect something, that doesn’t mean it does not exist, it means that we failed to prove its existence, or disprove it.
So in a brief conclusion, we find that Science basically bases its assumptions upon our own limitations and shortcomings, and that’s the essence of the problematic definition of Science, and it needs to be resolved before it limits the mind or narrows the perceptions of upcoming scientists. It limits the mind because it does not even allow the possibility of the existence of a realm beyond our physical realm, …Not even the possibility of ”the creator of atoms”; …and that’s quite narrow-minded, illogical and dogmatic. I state that because such an assumption is based on nothing but pure opinion, not facts, or proof, or any observable testable evidence. Here we clearly see that science contradicts it’s very systematic approach in finding truths by testable experimentations, yet when it fails to prove something, it jumps to the default conclusion that it doesn’t exist, rather than reaching the most logical conclusion, the agnostic conclusion, which is that we simply weren’t able to prove its existence nor disprove it.
To resolve this illogical problematic definition, I offer this cost free solution that is not only practical and effective, but also easily implemented. Which is, updating the definition of Science, spreading awareness about this false perception to the teachers of our time before the learners of our young generations. I don’t claim to be the most suited redeemer for updating the scientific educational definition, but the definition I would suggest for Science to be stated something similar to this:
“Science is the intellectual systematic study of the physical world (and what may lie beyond it) by observations, experimentations, and logic. Any limitations in our scientific tools or experiments that hinders our pursuit for the truth does not yield any default conclusion other than our own limitations and shortcomings at finding the truth.”