0

There are different sciences and different definitions to 'science'. But there must be some commonness when we use the term--'SCIENTIFIC'. Since it is supposed that almost all sciences are seeking the Truth, seeking the Truth might be one of them. Modern science also is doing the same thing; almost all people believe so. But it is a known fact that modern science always leaves something to find out. There is no end to it. It couldn't find out the Ultimate Truth so far. But Vedanta, the limit of knowledge, ends after realizing the Ultimate Truth since it can be / is to be realized without any reference.

So, my question is,

"Can we say that modern science is absolutely scientific?"

To make clearer let me classify people into 3 groups:

• People who have no commonsense -- (GROUP 1)

• People who have commonsense -- (GROUP 2) [Majority of people belong to this category]

• People who can't be clearly understood by Group 1 & 2 -- (GROUP 3). [Very rare category]

By GROUP 3 I mean men who are very wise and having very great abilities.

Are we considering the consensus of GROUP 2 only, TO BE SCIENTIFIC?

In pursuit of truth, when I followed modern science, I felt that it would not stop anywhere and would not give contentment to each person in their short lifespan. Once I asked myself--"Is this 'keeping of continuity for another Inquiry' the base of this usage?" This is the kernel of my question.

Of these two (given in bold letters), first one is my main question. But when answering it, please bear in mind the second one also.

I wouldn't have asked this question if the Ultimate Truth were still unknown.

SonOfThought
  • 3,743
  • 1
  • 9
  • 18
  • "there must be some commonness when we use the term scientific". Of course there are; see Wittgenstein's Family resemblance. Science is the activity of "scientists community" : in most (not all) cases, there is a very very high consensus of what kind od methods and results are scientific and what are not (astrology). There are "dubious" cases : omeopaty, psycoanalysis... – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Sep 12 '16 at 09:38
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA you are stating a Kuhn/Lakatos style définition of science, but there are others. – Alexander S King Sep 12 '16 at 16:05
  • @Son_of_Thought after your edit, the question became hard to follow. – Alexander S King Sep 12 '16 at 16:07
  • Yes, we can say that science is scientific, that is a tautology. We can also more or less say that Vedanta is not scientific, most of its followers would proudly admit to that. But I doubt this is what you meant to ask. It is hard to understand what it is though. Consensus of people with "common sense" is neither necessary nor sufficient for something to be scientific, scientific methodology may have grown out of common sense, but they parted ways long time ago. – Conifold Sep 12 '16 at 18:15
  • @Alexander S King: I have cleared your doubts about my question. – SonOfThought Sep 13 '16 at 04:22
  • @ Conifold: Do the left out parameters in modern science cause to form the residues for another inquiry? If "yes", it is the indication of the limitation of the usage--'scientific'(since the followers of Vedanta who live on this same earth proudly declare their path is scientific). – SonOfThought Sep 13 '16 at 15:40
  • I don't see why. "Science" is a western latinism, which is attempted to be slapped on everything today only because of perceived positive connotation. But scientific method specifically self-restricts to stay out of many areas of intellectual inquiry, and Vedanta developed in a non-western tradition that explored them. I myself wondered if science should try to venture into them in How should science approach non-empirical phenomena? http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32738/how-should-science-approach-non-empirical-phenomena But that would be a revision of what "scientific" means. – Conifold Sep 13 '16 at 20:41
  • Thanks. In my Group 3 category you can see people who don't approach the other two categories to get a clarification about scientific method. But in course of time they (Group 2) may understand what those people said about SCIENCE. They might become speechless when they realize the Truth. I didn't say that modern science is useless. My question is, "If scientific, how these residues come endlessly when following one path?" So, I am compelled to say "Scientific method of modern science is only a step to find a better SCIENTIFIC METHOD." – SonOfThought Sep 15 '16 at 04:10
  • If incomprehensible, you may close this question. I am quite sure, if we are the product of Nature, that Nature must be giving hints/opportunity to go SCIENTIFICALLY. My question is NEVER religious; but PURELY SCIENTIFIC. In this question I grouped the human beings only. Can we ignore the remaining large group 'who' are waiting for to be included in OUR SCIENTIFIC approach. It will take time to get the meaning. Thanks:) – SonOfThought Sep 16 '16 at 06:04
  • I feel the the question is tricky without a clear definition of 'science'. If 'science' is restricted to the study of the evidence of our physical senses then we'd have to call Yoga, advaita etc something else. Yoga is often called a science because not everyone gives the word such a restricted meaning, but Conifold gives the more common view when he speaks of 'non-empirical phenomena', a phrase that would denote the complete absence of phenomena for a Vedantist using 'empirical' to mean 'verifiable in experience'. . . . . , . –  Mar 16 '19 at 12:59
  • @PeterJ: I didn't try to ask any tricky question deliberately. Any way science is also a mean for seeking the Truth. I think I have focused on this idea in my question. I was trying to clarify some doubtful parts. This is a closed question. Thanks for your comment. – SonOfThought Mar 16 '19 at 14:45

1 Answers1

2

But there must be some commonness when we use the term--'scientific'.

There is no universally accepted definition of science, although there are several proposals. This is the problem of demarcation.

One such proposal, pushed by the Logical Positivists in the early 20th century, is the verification principle, or the verifiability criteria of meaning, which states that scientific statements are those that can be empirically verified. Those that aren't, are dismissed as nonsense (or metaphysics, which the L.P saw as a bad thing).

For example A.J. Ayer, one of the main English speaking Logical Positivists, in "Language, Truth, and Logic" (p16) states that:

The criterion which we use to test the genuineness of apparent statements of fact is the criterion of verifiability. We say that a sentence is factually significant to any given person, if, and only if, he knows how to verify the proposition which it purports to express — that is, if he knows what observations would lead him, under certain conditions, to accept the proposition as being true, or reject it as being false.

The reason I bring up the Logical Positivists is that the verification principle is frequently refuted as being unverifiable. A.J. Ayers definition of test if genuineness is itself untestable.

This seems to be very close to the question you ask: "Can we say that modern science is scientific?" -- and someone would respond, along the same lines that the verification principle was refuted, by saying, "statements about modern science are themselves unscientific, since there would be no way of testing or falsifying them".

Your question also reminds me of Paul Feyerabend, who has a radical stance on the demarcation problem.

Paul Feyerabend, in "Against Method", believes that not only is there is currently no proper definition of science or the scientific method, but that there can never be such a strict definition of science as solutions to the demarcation problem try to achieve, and that science is essentially "anarchistic". In his opening chapter, he states:

  • Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives.
  • This is shown both by an examination of historical episodes and by an abstract analysis of the relation between idea and action. The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes.

And then further down in the opening chapter, he states:

  • Thus science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit. It is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without having ever examined its advantages and its limits. And as the accepting and rejecting of ideologies should be left to the individual it follows that the separation of state and church must be supplemented by the separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution. Such a separation may be our only chance to achieve a humanity we are capable of, but have never fully realised.
Alexander S King
  • 27,390
  • 5
  • 70
  • 188
  • Upvoted for "science as the most aggressive dogmatic religious institution" (Just need to see Dawkins or Hitchens or Harris to see to what length dogmatism can go). I would though replace "science" by "scientism" – Rushi Mar 17 '19 at 16:39