Stealing Science?

"Science tells us... " It's an easy way to win an argument. In many respects, our culture is so enamored with this notion that it's often easy to believe the only way to trust anything is because of the thorough scrutiny and support of the scientific enterprise. Often, it's brought into arguments about God or other transcendent notions in order to illustrate the foolishness or blind faith of any worldview contrary to a scientific one. There's just one problem with this approach though. Science is not a worldview. In a continuation of my previous post, I'd like to take a closer look at some of the prevailing misconceptions of science and it's role in worldview development, as well as the specific worldview gripping tightly to this monopoly on truth.

Science!
As stated before, science itself is not a worldview. If that's the case, then you may be wondering "What is it?" Well, first off, the word "science" is derived from the Latin scientia, which simply means knowledge.  As J. L. Heilbron put it, "It was a discovery that nature generally acts regularly enough to be described by laws and even by mathematics; and required invention to devise the techniques, abstractions, apparatus, and organization for exhibiting the regularities and securing their law-like descriptions. 1 " At it's core, science is an established method  for collecting knowledge about the natural world. That's it. All science can do, is provide us with a collection of information that we must then interpret. As such, the scientific method itself is rather neutral as a means for collecting this knowledge. This is great as far as it goes, however often times, this tool gets confused as the only way to know about the world. Once this stance has been adopted however, we've moved beyond the mere collection of data and into a worldview commonly referred to as Scientism.

Fallacy of Scientism
Scientism has many forms, but for the purpose of this post, I'll focus on what's commonly known as Hard Scientism, or the belief that science alone can give us knowledge. By holding to the view that science is the only way to understand something, you start to create a worldview that can't support it's own weight. For one, this stance is what's known in logic as a "self refuting" statement. An example would be the phrase "There are no words in this sentence." By using words to state the fact that there are no words, the statement defeats itself and thus cannot true. Now look at the statement "Science is the only way we can know the truth." Though this one may not be as immediately obvious, it still falls apart by offering a claim that science itself cannot support. Science will not, and indeed can not, make such a philosophical claim for itself about the truth and how we know it (this is primarily a branch of Philosophy known as Epistemology). Upon further reflection, it's easy to see that there are in fact many things we all claim justifiable knowledge of without the use of the scientific method,  such as aesthetic, mathematical, ethical and logical truths. Some of these must be presupposed and accepted before you can even start a scientific inquiry!

Science, or Naturalism
The main reason Scientism falls apart is on the grounds that science itself needs another worldview in which to operate. As a tool, it can't operate on it's own, but needs someone to operate it. Enter the worldview of Naturalism. Many people who claim that science is the best and only way to ascertain knowledge really fall under this worldview. The worldview of Naturalism states that the material, natural world is all there is and that nothing beyond it exists or is of any importance. Hopefully by now, you're catching on and can see that this view falls into some of the same problems that Scientism does.  For instance, the same claims of aesthetic, mathematical and logical truths all exists outside of the material world. In fact, ideas and propositions themselves have no grounding in Naturalism. The very words running through your head as you read this sentence do not exist in the physical world, but nonetheless you know them and hold them as true. Ironically, the scientific method does not exist as a natural state, but rather a prescribed method for which to study the natural world. Despite the case against it, many people still grasp onto the fact that material world is all there is. To hold to this philosophy is one thing, but often the only support provided for such a claim is "Science tells us..."

Why do they get science?
If you're following along, it should be clear to you that science, by it's very definition and nature, merely collects information about the natural world. If one starts with such a premise, they are excluding anything beyond nature and then using science to support their claim. This then becomes a circular logical fallacy known as begging the question. One merely assumes that Naturalism and the physical world is all there is and then uses a tool that can only bring information about physical nature to support it. The opposite of this claim, however, is not true. If you open yourself up to the idea that there can be knowledge and information beyond the material universe, you don't necessarily disregard science all together. What this does is aid you in seeing the purpose of science and how it fits withing the overall context. I hope this post hasn't given you the wrong idea, I love science! Within my own christian worldview, I have no problem with studying the physical, material world and understanding all there is and how it works. However I also look beyond that and see how the very existence of nature and it's parts reflect an amazing intelligence's handiwork.

Because of this, it's important to realize that science is not the sole property of the Naturalistic worldview, or that science alone is the sole arbiter of knowledge. This is where the importance of understanding a persons worldview comes into play. It could be that scientific data lends support to a claim, however, most often the core of the belief is really one's own presuppositions about the world. This can easily lead to a faulty worldview that has succumbed to circular reasoning and contradictions. If you accept the fact that science can only tell us part of what can be understood, this opens up the possibilities of where scientific data can actually lead you. So the next time someone tries to persuade you with "Science tells us..." stop and think about what the person is actually stating. Is it really science that's making a statement, or has that person's worldview stolen the cultural seal of approval provided by the scientific enterprise to assert a claim he can't really ground?

1 - J. L. Heilbron,(2003, editor-in-chief). The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science

Today's Recommendations

Recommended Reading
Kingdom Triangle, By J.P. Moreland
A great book discussing the importance of worldviews and focusing on the major schools of thought pervading our culture, Scientific Naturalism and Post Modernism.

Recommended Listening 
Does Science Offer Evidence Based Creation Story, Thinking Out Loud Podcast, Alan Shlemon
Quick podcast with a great illustration of how naturalism often lays claim to science as it's own worldview. 

Recommended Research
Best Explanation Apologetics - The Poached Egg
An article on Abductive reasoning and how to interpret data correctly.     

Why Science is Not the Only Path to Knowledge - Please Convince Me Blog
Updated this post to add this great blog post that continues this same subject of how there are other paths to knowledge and how comfortable still sits in a Christian worldview. 

Today's Challenge
Check out an article on a new scientific discovery. See what conclusions are drawn in the article. Are these conclusions unbiased, or do they lean heavily on presuppositions outside of the date collected? Draft an argument that points out the self-contradictions (if any) or exposes the real worldview at work behind the information.