THE TRUTH OF SCIENCE:

The truths of science are important because of what science can do to harm society and, on the other hand can and must often do for society beneficially.  The truth of science is not, in any case, what you probably have been led to believe.  The reality is (according to Albert Einstein) that “Scientific truth is nothing but conditional truth."

Science can be a wonderful thing, but it is not inherently always such.

Referring to science, Einstein also said; "For every complex question there is a simple and wrong solution."  Simple solutions are not necessarily the correct solution to scientific questions.   Complex "solutions" to scientific problems can, on the other hand be misleading in their meaning and extrapolation to broad use.

To these basic truths, one must also consider that science is practiced by fallible humans whose motives (money and prestige, etc.) are often not compatible with the truth of what is beneficial to society.  Nevertheless, science should be supported by society in areas where it can do great good.  Science should, however, be thoroughly questioned to bring out the truth in areas where it can do great harm to society.

It is important to remember that the only truth that comes from science which is unquestionable is that which can be demonstrated directly in the laboratory.

The questions which can be answered for society by science, with any degree of certainty, are also limited to those which are subject to laboratory test.  It is laboratory tests only which give science theories validity and claims to the truth.  Einstein also said, however; “The truth of a theory can never be proven, for one never knows if future experience will contradict its conclusions.” 

Einstein clearly did not mean that there are not simply understood answers to the questions of physics.  He also said; "All physical theories... ought to lend themselves to so simple a description that even a child could understand them."   If an explanation by an "expert" scientist is not understandable by a layman, while the explanation may still be true, it is probably not an explanation that should be assumed to be true.  All science interpretations of the truth are susceptible to human failings.  Albert Einstein, Philosophy of Science.

It was agree to by 72 Nobel Laureates that the essentials of science are;

It is guided by natural law.
It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law.
It is testable against the empirical world.
Its conclusions are tentative (are not necessarily the final word).
It is falsifiable.

If a scientific pronouncement cannot possibly be falsified in the laboratory, it is not hard science fact.  Interpretations/conclusions may not represent the "truth".  Interpretations are just mental constructs which to have any real meaning must be at least in principle falsifiable in a laboratory.  To the degree which the conclusion is subjective, it is not science.  It is philosophy.  It can be wrong.  Science usually deals with models of reality which may or may not be valid models.

We are not saying or meaning to imply that most of science is wrong at all.  The opposite is true and virtually always true of repeatable laboratory experiment results.  Within the science community, most of what is presented as "science" is in fact science and true.  It is mostly when science tries to present broad generalizations (especially to the public) that what is presented as "science" is actually nothing more than philosophy and opinion and not hard science.

Science does a good job in describing "how" reality operates.   In the book "Quantum Gravity" by L. Smolin, the author points out that all of reality is fundamentally only about relationships.   One needs to be skeptical when scientists make broad generalizations and claims about deep understandings that go beyond relationships proven in the laboratory.  Science is often if not usually unreliable when it tries to answer "why" questions with theories about the reasons why reality is the way it is. Why questions cannot be answered in the laboratory except for relationships. 

We recommend the book "The politically incorrect guide to science."  (We do not agree with all the positions in the book, but it does point out how in a number of areas, the hard laboratory science may in fact be quite different from what is indicated to the public.)

We also strongly recommend reading the book; "A Different Universe, Reinventing Physics From The Bottom Down, by R. Laughlin, Nobel Prize physicist.  Mr. Laughlin's book is enjoyable, easy to read and loaded with astounding and profound comments on science.  On page 13 he says; "---scientific theories always have a subjective component that is as much a creation of the times as a codification of objective reality."  He goes on to say on the same page; "--it is necessary in science to take stock every now and then and reevaluate what one deeply understands and what one does not."

Einstein said: "Science as something coming into being, as a goal, is just as subjectively psychologically conditioned as are all other human endeavors."  Science is not simply objective fact.  It is not unquestionable beyond the direct and limited laboratory findings.  Science is about getting it less wrong as time passes.  At least it is supposed to be so, and it is not supposed to be about dogma.  We should teach science as a process and method which leaves uncertainty, not as unquestionable dogma.   

One should also be aware that even consensus among science peers can come about by a flawed system.  The Religion of peer review.    Science can also be perverted by other sources;  Junk Science : How Politicians, Corporations, and Other Hucksters Betray Us.

Scientists should resist the real world factors which contaminate the value of the science and also always keep in mind the underlying principles (metaphysics) and limiting philosophy.  Sadly this is very often not the case.  The meaning of metaphysics.    Bad Science.   In Search Of . . . . Real Science. 

Clearly, even Einstein did not believe that science gives unquestionable/absolute truth.  "Truth" in science is almost always conditional on some assumption.   Ten Myths about Science.  reEXAMINing WHAT WE THINK WE KNOW (refer to the myths listed.   

There are other scientists besides Einstein who believe that science does not represent unquestionable truth.  Science truth.  This following link shows that scientists can overlook the limits of science and even be arrogant about what science is telling us. 

Einstein also recognized that science only informs us about situations which are relatively simple (it should be noted that all of living world is not relatively simple.)   Einstein said; "when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us."

In the book "Inventing Reality, Physics as Language" by B. Gregory, the author quotes Einstein on page x as saying about physics; "To him who is a discoverer in this field, the products of his imagination appears so necessary and natural that he regards them, and would like to have them regarded by others, not as creations of thought but as given realities."  This is why scientists tend to blur the distinction between the models of reality and reality itself.  Einstein pointed out that physics models (laws of physics) are just creations of the mind (mental and mathematical models) and not reality itself.   Physicist Henri Poincare had some interesting insights on "Science and Hypothesis." (See 5. near bottom of link page.)

Mr. Gregory on page 5 of the book again quotes Einstein as saying; "knowledge cannot spring from experience alone, but only from the comparison of the inventions of the mind with observed fact."  Einstein is again saying that physics laws are not structured just from fact but from what is in the mind of the physicists also.  Even physics (the study of the laws which under gird all of reality) is not by an measure only pure unquestionable fact.  Most things in physics are virtually certain fact (for all practical purposes) but much is still very questionable on profound questions and also especially at the extremes of the very large and the very small.

With Albert Einstein saying all these things about the conditional nature of science, can we and should we take present day scientific pronouncements and reports as unquestionable truth?   The answer is clearly no.  This is especially true when the supposed science paints an apparent picture of reality that is contrary to a positive view of reality.   We especially should not believe statements like those made by materialist/atheist Richard Dawkins when he describes humans as "gigantic lumbering robots".  (Reference page 291 of Richard Lewontin's book; "It Ain't Necessarily So, The Dream of the Human Genome and Other Illusions.)  We recommend Mr. Lewontin's books as very informative of some key truths of science even though we strongly disagree with even his level of materialism (which is, however, not a basis for all his ideas and the wealth of information he provides in his books.)

Even the simplest of mathematics on which physics is based, makes certain assumptions (called Axioms), which are believed to be true by observation, but which cannot be proven.   Not only can Axioms not be proven to be true, but at its most basic level, physics (from which all science springs) tells us that actual reality if far different from what our minds tell us about the universe around us.  This is made clear in the book; "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by physicists Brian Greene.   Also refer to our essay; "Actual Reality painted by physics."

Even if you believe that science offers precise truths you have to define "precise".   The truth and precision of physics and most of science is dependent on mathematics.    Galileo once said that “The language of Nature is mathematics.”  Even mathematics is not as pure as one would think.

For example, In high school we learn in school that supposedly there is a very simple relationship between the diameter of a circle and the circumference. The truth, however, is that we only know the relationship approximately.  Mathematicians cannot even define the simple ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter of a circle without calling on a number which is irrational.  By irrational it is meant that an infinite string of numbers is required to define it.   Even simple mathematics is not absolutely precise.

The value of “Pi” is known to mathematicians to a very good approximation, but it can never be known exactly.   That does not mean that the number used is in error, only that the number is an approximation to the truth.   It turns out that all science is an approximation to the truth.  Some of it a very good approximation, and some of it not very accurate but the best model found to date.

Most people would never guess that science can never know the exact relationship of something as simple as the ratio of the diameter and circumference of a circle.   This is not the only such case where the approximations of science are not generally known.   Such approximations are more the rule than the exception.  Knowing this is true in such simple cases, it becomes much easier to understand Einstein’s remarks and begin to question pronouncements made by scientists which seem to be findings of absolute truth.    The Myth of Objectivity.  Refer to "Pitfalls of Subjectivity" about 2/3 the way down the link page.

There is a book published in 1997 titled “The Truth of Science."   It is one of the books which we highly recommended reading.  Even though we do not agree with some positions in the book, the book is quite readable by non-scientists and is a good reference on the subject.  On page 93 it states: “The facts upon which scientific laws are based are almost never established in pristine isolation; rather, in one way or another, they usually depend on these very laws: they are intertwined with them.”

Read the last paragraph of this link about "paradigm."   Science is not a single absolute set of independent knowledge.

We also recommend; "Science As Falsification"; by noted philosopher Karl Popper.  The Nature and Philosophy of Science.

Amazingly, a mathematician by the name of Kurt Godel, has actually shown that not only science is intertwined upon itself, but all knowledge is limited by the system of logic used.   (Note that mathematics is just a form of numerical logic.)  Ultimately all logic becomes self-referencing to some degree like the following sentence which is false and true and the same time: “All rules have exceptions.”  This is not just a trick statement.  It has profound implications for science.  There is no such thing as absolute knowledge in reasoning and trying to understand the universe.  Conversations with a Mathematician: Math, Art, Science and the Limits of Reason.

Based upon Gödel's theorem, our ability to know the universe is fundamentally limited by the basic limits of mathematics.  The question then becomes, how much more is still unknown in physics and how much is unknowable?  Einstein once pointed out:  "It is possible that there exist emanations that are still unknown to us.  Do you remember how electrical currents and “unseen waves” were laughed at?”  We now listen to and watch what used to be “laughed at” “unseen waves”.  Such  radio waves are the source of radio and television and we even cook food with them in microwave ovens.  Before they were discovered, anyone proposing such things as radio waves would have been ridiculed by the scientific establishment.

Einstein is also quoted in Mr. Gregory's books as saying; "A courageous scientific imagination was needed to realize that not the behavior of bodies, but the behavior of something between them, that is, the field,  may be essential for ordering and understanding events."  

What other forms of waves or emanations (fields) exist if any?   If science has not found any, that does not prove they do not exist?  Scientists are in fact trying to prove the existence of what is called the Higgs field (they have been looking for it for about 40 years) and there is also what is called dark matter and quintessence which are also postulated fields.  (The truth of science is that the scientific descriptions of the behavior of matter in the universe are off by 90%; that is, 90% of the matter appears to be missing.  So much for accurate science in understanding the universe.)

There are, in fact, good reasons to believe that some form of field (Reference paragraphs 4), 5), and 6) of this link) may exist which guides evolution.  While God is beyond science, God to most people would be something like a field of intelligence, consciousness and love (harmony) which is not detectable by physics.  There is no fundamental reason (no science fact which points to) to believe that just because science cannot detect something, that it cannot exist.

Even consciousness is not directly measurable by science though many non scientists may think it is and consciousness seems to be coupled to the deepest law of physics (quantum mechanics.)   This again points out that at the deepest level of physics, there is a need for consciousness which is in itself not directly even detectable by science. Quantum Physics is the deepest most basic physics and it presents many paradoxes and strange conclusions and a probable relationship to the existence of for consciousness.

Intelligence is closer to science but is also not simply defined.  There is a growing list of scientific findings, in any case, that seem to point towards the existence of God or which are at least consistent with a belief in God.  Again, we should not forget that if science says something does not exist, it may be that it just hasn’t been discovered yet.  That is what the situation was with radio waves before they were discovered.

There are, of course, beliefs outside of mainstream science (like astrology, for example) which should be weighed against the most probably reliable findings of science.  A true skeptic, however, should also take on not only things like astrology but also the exaggerated claims of the conventional science community.  This is needed in both the cosmological and life sciences where the levels of proof are in need of serious questioning.  This is sadly, however, rarely being done.