Chapter 1: The Evolution of Science

Science, as we understand it today, has undergone significant transformation. The term "science" only gained its contemporary meaning towards the close of the 19th century, evolving from what was once referred to as natural philosophy. This shift introduced "Scientia," or "knowledge," which has since become a comprehensive term encompassing a method, a discipline, various institutions, and a repository of discoveries.

As a result, society has largely accepted that science represents the most reliable means of discerning truth. This perception is not without justification; the pursuit of truth is inherently complex. Naturalists argue that while we possess tools for empirical exploration, our capabilities for understanding the essence of truth are somewhat limited.

Consider the realm of religion or the conviction in free will. These concepts may be seen as metaphors at best, or heuristics at worst—beliefs that may not necessarily reflect reality but offer certain advantages when embraced. Some theorists posit that the brain constructs our perceived reality just as much as it observes it. Neuroscientist Anil Seth, for instance, delivered a TED Talk titled “Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality,” emphasizing this notion.

In simplistic terms, science endeavors to refine knowledge into a discipline focused on outcomes. It translates assertions of truth into hypotheses that can be empirically tested. For example, if one believes they can pass through a wall, it is not the belief itself that determines its validity, but the resulting impact when attempting to do so.

In theory, science seeks to organize knowledge systematically, as defined by Wikipedia: a "rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world." However, the reality is far more nuanced. One could argue that this approach does not constitute a true epistemology, nor does it serve as a heuristic. If our goal is genuine understanding, we must grapple with fundamental inquiries—questions of essence, reason, and existence—rather than merely cataloging observable phenomena.

British philosopher Karl Popper argued that although science theoretically incorporates verifiability and falsification, it essentially hinges on a singular universal method: trial and error.

Alongside science exists rationalism, often conflated with empirical methods. During the Enlightenment, this was framed as a conflict between whether the mind serves as a tool for reasoning about truth or if truth must be sought externally. In contemporary discourse, these ideas have largely merged into a vague belief in "science," often blurring the lines between empirical and rational approaches.

In practice, while we lean towards empirical methods, much of our reasoning is rooted in rationalism. Prominent figures like Richard Dawkins illustrate this overlap; although trained as a scientist, he frequently delves into philosophical discussions, mistakenly believing he is adhering to empirical methods. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinctions recognized by Enlightenment thinkers.

Dawkins, for instance, coined the term “memes” to describe how certain beliefs persist, regardless of their veracity, suggesting that the brain operates on software designed for other functions rather than pursuing objective truth. The empirical stance argues for an external discipline, asserting that to ascertain knowledge, one must conduct rigorous testing—akin to running into a wall to confirm its solidity. This binary perspective limits the exploration of profound questions that transcend empirical inquiry.

Questions surrounding the existence of a deity, the nature of meaning, beauty, or the very essence of being, cannot be reduced to mere empirical tests. The philosophical inquiry of "quid est?" or "What is it?" cannot be adequately addressed through empirical methods alone. How do we scientifically define a tree or consciousness? Each inquiry leads to broader existential questions that empirical science struggles to encapsulate.

Scientific methods often divert these inquiries into mere observations or testable theories. We can enumerate characteristics of a tree or conduct experiments to observe its growth, yet these tactics fail to answer the fundamental question: what constitutes a tree?

For some in the scientific community, the response is to declare that such questions are devoid of meaning, asserting that scientific explanations are the only valid forms of understanding. This reductionist view has given rise to a modern materialist ideology that, ironically, obscures the profound questions we initially sought to explore.

Consequently, contemporary science is rife with terminologies that evoke illusions. Anil Seth proposes that the brain creates a “hallucinated” reality, while cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett refers to consciousness as “the mind’s user illusion,” dismissing phenomenology and framing the hard problem of consciousness as a revival of vitalism. Subjectivity is often disregarded, seen as an epiphenomenon with reality distilled to mere materiality.

In this modern era, philosophy appears to be in a state of decline. In his concluding work, "The Grand Design," Professor Stephen Hawking proclaimed that philosophy is obsolete, having failed to adapt to scientific advancements. A more accurate perspective might be that science has overshadowed philosophy, rendering it incompatible with its framework.

Where do we move from this juncture? Perhaps that warrants further exploration. It is essential to recognize that much of our reasoning is underpinned by beliefs regarding the mind that transcend scientific methodology. Within our consciousness lies a sense of agency and thought that we value, even if it contradicts the notion of us being mere biological machines driven solely by survival. Science must be contextualized within a broader philosophical discourse that addresses questions of meaning and essence. Yet, we often dismiss such inquiries as inherently meaningless, a misstep that threatens the very foundation of our understanding.

See also:

The Strange Return of Belief in God Why public intellectuals are more openly expressing belief in God

The Degradation of Public Science How the myths of knowledge have moved from wonder to cynicism

Why Dawkins' "The God Delusion" is the Worst Work of Popular Philosophy Ever Written Popular as it was, Dawkins' work is riddled with inane schoolboy arguments, poor philosophy, and blatant prejudice.

Chapter 2: The Fallacies of the Scientific Method

The first video, "The scientific method is crap: Teman Cooke at TEDxLancaster," critiques the limitations of the scientific method and its implications for understanding reality. In this talk, Cooke argues that an over-reliance on this method can lead to misconceptions and delusions about truth.

The second video, "The Scientific Method - Review the Basics," offers a foundational overview of the scientific method, exploring its principles and applications. This video serves as a reminder of the method's importance while acknowledging its constraints.