What is science, how far is its scope, and to what extent can we rely on it in understanding this Universe and

our position therein? How authoritative or sovereign is it? Is Science synonymous to knowledge i.e. is scientific knowledge the very extent of knowledge itself? These are the questions this paper aims to discuss and deliberate upon. I have also sought to address certain common misconceptions about science, mostly about the relation of science and religion. To achieve this end, I have frequently introduced relevant tangents as and when necessary. How Does Science work? If we want to know the scope of science and the level of reliance we should place upon it, we need to know the method science adopts. Without getting too technical, the scientific method can be briefly explained as a sequence of things which are logically connected to each other: experiment, hypothesis, theory. First off, a scientist experiments, and notes his results. Then to explain the phenomena observed, he proposes a hypothesis. He then subjects his hypothesis to more experiments, if it accumulates enough evidence, then by scientific consensus it earns the prestigious title of a scientific theory [1]. However, if evidence is shown to speak against it, then the theory is discarded and new explanations are sought. Lets consider an example to illustrate this: the famous experiment by Bernett Rosenberg. Rosenberg was experimenting the growth of bacteria under electric current. His observation was that under electric current, bacterial cell division stops, arresting growth. To explain this phenomenon, Rosenberg placed a hypothesis: the platinum used in the electrode reacted with the growth medium, thereby producing a platinum containing compound which effectively stops cell growth. Further experimenting gave credence to this hypothesis, and it was dubbed a scientific theory. Similar examples of theory include the theory of gravity, for example. A theory has some definitive characteristics: It has enough empirical evidence i.e. experiments speak in its favour. No matter how many times you hold an object in midair, it would fall to the ground. This demonstrates how experimenting favours the theory of gravity. It tries to explain nature by providing a causal mechanism. For example, A platinum-based compound is the causative mechanism of preventing cell division is meant to explain how the bacteria stopped growing. It provides a room for falsification. Its theoretically possible to prove a theory wrong. If one wants to prove gravity wrong, for example, all s/he has to do is show that an object dropped from midair would float under normal circumstances. This phenomenon would then contest the premise that all objects attract one another, and the theory of gravity would have to be discarded.

A scientific theory is as high as science goes in terms of evidence. Contrary to a semipopular belief, a scientific fact is not a scientific term, although it is used in casual

discourses; nor does a theory ever somehow evolve into a fact. A scientific theory is the height of science. Unless evidence suggests otherwise, a scientific theory would be tantamount to what we refer to as a fact. Something that merely states the observations without trying to posit a causal explanation for them is called a law. Objects attract each other or cell division stops under electric current, for example, are laws. A law isnt more correct than a theory or anything, just that a theory attempts to explain the observations, while a law merely notes them in a concise and elegant fashion. So to summarize, scientific knowledge is established first by observations, then by proving a causal mechanism for that observation. How true is science? As has been demonstrated above, science is based on observation and observation alone. Science only deals with what we can grasp with our senses. What we observe, science takes to be factual. What we dont observe, science disregards. Observation, therefore, is the criterion, the basis of judgment and authentication when it comes to science. And so the inevitable happened, some philosophers started digging up dirt. They questioned: why do we consider our observations to be the definitive axiom? What is there to tell us that our senses are true? They argued, we hold our observations and empirical evidences to be authoritative for granted, without any logical premise. One can stretch this argument and go on to say that our belief in the scientific method is dogmatic. In a similar vein, another scientific assumption can also be called to question. As noted above, scientific knowledge builds on experimenting or testing. This experimental observation in turn builds on the premise that natural phenomena do not change: if gravity pulls an object down 10 times, it will necessarily pull it down an 11th time as well; bacterial cell division would stop under electric current no matter how many times we experiment. In strict logical terms, this has no proof either. To prove such a thing we have to experiment an infinite number of times, which is obviously impossible. In hater terminology, basing scientific knowledge on experiments done a limited number of times is a dogmatic approach as well. These might seem unusual if not weird, since we dont really question what we observe. We dont question death, for example, because history hasnt recorded a single person who escaped death. But really, we havent really proven in the absolute sense of the word that every single man is doomed to die, nor is it even feasible, because this necessitates we tally the deaths of human beings till the end of time. However, in all intellectual honesty, from a very strict, stringent point of view, this claim of science basing itself on an assumption is quite true, and philosophers and scientists

agree with this unanimously. Lehninger, Nelson and Coxs textbook Principles of Biochemistry reads under A Note on the Nature of Science: The progress of science rests on a foundational assumption that is often unstated but crucial to the enterprise: that the laws governing forces and phenomena existing in the universe are not subject to change. The Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod referred to this underlying assumption as the postulate of objectivity. The natural world can therefore be understood by applying a process of inquiry-the scientific method. Science could not succeed in a universe that played tricks on us. This assumption is not taken out of fancy, but necessity. Imagine Newton seeing the apple hit the ground but still waiting till infinity or death- whichever comes first- to see if any of the apples float in midair. Had it not been for this assumption, we would have to assume that the processes in the universe are completely random. That way science would lose its most valuable asset: predictability, and will therefore be useless. We would have made no progress whatsoever and would probably be still living in caves. So for all practical purposes, this assumption was made, in order for our knowledge of this universe to progress. Whats the Scientific Verdict on the Supernatural? Now let me go down a tangent here, and we will be taking quite a few tangents in this paper. We established that science is comprised of, concerned with and confined in natural facts and phenomena. Well what about anything beyond natural? What is the take of science on the supernatural? Does it acknowledge its existence, or rule it out? Many people claim that science rules out the supernatural and that science is the extent of reality. However, as for the supernatural, science answers no comments. This is due to the simple reason that science is only useful in a natural world, confined to natural laws. The supernatural however is by definition free of these natural laws for science to capitalize upon. This is why science has absolutely nothing to say in this regard. Science neither accepts the supernatural nor denies it. As for the extent of reality, science stays silent on this issue as well. Science knows what it works on, but whether what it works on is all there is, thats beyond the scope of science to determine. These issues are subject to philosophical reasoning, even personal opinions and interpretations; not scientific ones. More light on the reach of scientific reality is to be found later in the paper. Some people might argue back by saying: such reasoning essentially grants possibility for everything to exist. If science doesnt rule out what is supernatural then we even have to consider the possibility of existence of unicorns or Darth Vader. This argument does have a point. To resolve this, we need to find a balance between entertaining the possibility of everything vs. ruling out everything. There should be a logical basis for our acceptance and our rejection, this logical basis being independent evidence. In the case of things which have no empirical basis, the burden of proof lies on the person who claims its existence. Therefore the proponent of such a thing should bring forward his or her

independent evidence for the claim. If this evidence passes the test of scrutiny, then we should accept it, otherwise not. On the other side of the spectrum, we should not deny such independent evidence on the basis that no empirical evidence has been provided for them. Many people claim empirical evidence is the only way of establishing the proof of something. This however is not true. Logicians have other ways to provide proof, inferential evidence for example. A very rudimentary example of such evidence would be confirming the existence of fire on the sight of smoke. Smoke proves the existence of fire without providing empirical evidence for this. So if we have independent evidence for something even though it has no empirical proof, we should by all means confirm it. This is because the mere absence of empirical evidence does not act as negative proof against the existence of something, as demonstrated above. It was this very consideration with which we entered into the discussion of treatment of things beyond the scope of science. To illustrate with an example, consider the theistic argument for the existence of a transcendent cognizant creator of the universe. Theists claim that the existence of such a being is proven by means of inferential evidence. Now whether this claim is true or not has undergone generations of voluminous debates, and this paper certainly isnt a place to discuss this. However, lets assume that the claim is valid: the existence of a creator is proven by means of inferential evidence. Some people may rule it out on the premise that there is no empirical evidence for it. However the problems with this are: firstly, if we rule it out, it would be disregarding the inferential evidences that are extant; and secondly, as discussed above, the absence of empirical evidence does not act as negative proof against the existence of anything, nor does it somehow blot out the inferential evidences presented. To claim that it does is making the assumption that empirical evidence is the extent of reality, which is an assumption, not a logical premise. So provided that independent evidence does exist for something, the logical treatment would be to not rule it out, rather to confirm its existence. Now lets consider the other extreme: the existence of a unicorn. A unicorn has no independent evidence which speaks for itself, inferential or otherwise. In such a case, considering its existence imparts no practical benefit. Although from a strict logical point of view, lack of evidence does not rule out its possibility of existence, but since no evidence whatsoever is provided for it, for all practical purposes we should treat it as something nonexistent. The expected burden of proof on its part has not been met, hence there is no reason whatsoever why we should entertain its possibility. Kind of in the same vein, let me introduce another tangent: miracles. In the world of science, every force and phenomena are subject to laws, which make them predictable. Miracles on the other hand are believed to be unpredictable and therefore unscientific. On this basis, many renowned philosophers (like Spinoza, for instance) has termed miracles to be impossible, and reformers tried to introduce innovative exegesis of scriptures in order to counter this apparent existence of impossibility in Divine word. The explicit mentions of miracles found in the religious scriptures were interpreted as either allegorical or mythical. However, there is a problem in such reasoning i.e. science rules

out miracles: the foundational assumption science makes about nature spoken of earlier (natural phenomena and laws are not subject to change) is implemented out of context. We need to remember that this assumption was introduced in order to make the progress of science possible, so that nature could be interpreted as predictable, and laws could be formulated on its basis, so human knowledge could grow. What these philosophers did, they took this assumption out of the context of science and applied it in understanding miracles, which are by definition supernatural. So we are losing perspective here: the said assumption is only useful in the context of science, otherwise it is merely an assumption; therefore treating in like a premise especially in forming worldviews wont get you anywhere. Miracle is something beyond the natural, and in the case of the supernatural this assumption is no more than an assumption, serving no practical benefits whatsoever. Some people may question this by saying: to give any benefit of doubt to miracles is to defeat the scientific endeavor altogether, since this strips nature out of its predictability. However, the same rule applies here: if the said miracle is based on independent evidence, we accept it; otherwise, we dont entertain its possibility. What is the Reach of Sciences Authority? So weve seen how it works, weve seen its level of reliability. Now what is it good for? And how far is its scope? The enterprise of science is so vast, and general expectation of it so high, that I guess what we should talk about what its NOT good for. Some people equate science with knowledge. This is true only to an extent. Lets think about it this way: after adopting the scientific method, what we end up with are facts. This is something we need to think about and digest. The scope of science ends with the discovery of facts. But is human reality only composed of facts? Negative. One does not build his/her worldview on the basis of facts alone, rather on the interpretation of those facts [2]. If you explained a scientific theory to anyone, regardless of his or her worldview, you might only end up with a thats cool brah. However, if you impose a personal interpretation on this, and then present it to the prospect, you would get differing answers if it relates to his/her worldview. Facts are always correct, but interpretations may or may not be. It seems like I am only speaking in theory, so let me give an example at this point. Quite a controversial one, one might add. I do not know the details of this, but this illustrates the point Im trying to get across. Scientists contend that at the initial stages, prior to the big bang itself, there was what scientists refer to as a quantum vacuum, which happens to be a fabric of space-time, a sea of fluctuating energy where the positive and negative energy cancel out each other, and it adheres to the laws of this universe. Thereafter quantum fluctuation resulted in the universe(s). The likes of Dr. Stephen Hawking or Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss argue, this

process actually explains how the universe was created out of nothing. Therefore there is no need to posit a transcendent God or Prime Mover to explain the existence of the universe. However, the theist can argue that quantum vacuum is not nothing: just because the total energy equals zero does not make it nothing. Nothingness is an entity which has no characteristics and it literally contains nothing, not even the raw particles of physics. So the claim that the universe came from nothing is not factual. In this example, the existence of a quantum state and the creation of universe by means of quantum fluctuation may be factual. But the claim that this explains the existence of universe from nothing, and therefore there is no need to invoke God, is not factual, it is merely an interpretation of the fact. Facts, therefore, do not equal understanding. Here we realize the necessity of Sir Francis Bacons dream: scientific facts are only as good as the interpretations we make of them. The facts scientists come up with are accurate, but if they interpret it according to their personal opinion, then we need to stand guard against it. This is precisely why Bacon said that scientific knowledge should be properly coordinated; facts should be taken as facts, and interpretations as interpretations. To introduce a slight tangent here: philosophy starts where science ends. The eloquent Will Durant has some insightful words to present: Science tells us how to heal and how to kill; it reduces the death rate in retail and then kills us wholesale in war; but only wisdom-desire coordinated in the light of all experience-can tell us when to heal and when to kill. To observe processes and to construct means is science; to criticize and coordinate ends is philosophy: and because in these days our means and instruments have multiplied beyond our interpretation and synthesis of ideals and ends, our life is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. For a fact is nothing except in relation to desire; it is not complete except in relation to a purpose and a whole. Science without philosophy, facts without perspective and valuation cannot save us from havoc and despair. [3] Science generates facts: not the understanding they are believed to have replaced; science hands us knowledge, but not wisdom. Thats where philosophy comes in; we weigh the scientific findings in the scales of logic to arrive at the correct interpretation. Once we realize this, we understand the true place of science in our lives. We should not reduce science down to facts, but we should coordinate and interpret those facts, and relate them to whatever purpose we have assigned to life. A theist, for example, looks at nature and interprets the creation with all its wonders to be evidence for Gods greatness, while the atheist would tend to interpret the creations wonders to be amazing, but not purposefully designed. Thus is the importance of purpose to a student of science. With all of that said, let me say something on a take-it-or-leave-it note: knowledge for the sake of knowledge doesnt do justice to the true reach of science. Knowledge itself is not virtue enough; it becomes virtuous, meaningful even, once we learn to attribute it to our purpose, whatever that may be.

Here again, we realize science is not by default atheistic, the interpretations that are made of scientific facts may be. Science has no religion, nor lack thereof. What does science answer? In all its facts and findings, what question does science try to answer? Some people claim science has the answers to all human questions. This is not true. The question science answers is how, as opposed to why. Science can only go as far as to answer the howness of things, their apparent causality, not their whyness, their true causality. The following is an excerpt from a website which illustrates my point beautifully: The problem with science and causality goes back to the very fundamentals of science. Science is based on empirical testing. That means we examine things, examine how actions cause reaction, and then pour that data into a workable formula. We can examine the ratio of how things interact trough that method, we can also find out when things do, and when they don't work. But we can't find out why things are correlated! Take gravity for example, the force that we are most familiar with. We have no idea what causes gravity. Newton discovered that gravity is somehow related to mass. And that gravity is some sort of force between all objects that have mass. He even figured out the ratio of how strong the force is compared to how much mass an object has, and how far from other objects something is. What causes this, is however unknown. Einstein later redefined the problem by saying that objects with mass cause geodesic lines in space-time which in turn other objects with mass will follow. Why this occurs, is again unknown. Later in quantum mechanics, the standard model predicted a new messenger particle: the graviton which would cause gravity. To date the particle has not yet been found, and even if it would be found, the question remains, what causes mass to emit this particle, and how does this particle cause attraction between objects? Nowadays string theory suggests the all particles are actually strings instead of points. The effect and characteristics of a specific particle would be caused by the way it vibrates. They speculate that the graviton is the only closed string (like a loop, as opposed to other particles being open ended strings) which is why it's so hard to catch it in experiments. However the question still remains: why? Why does it vibrate in that specific way; and why does this string cause what we experience as gravity? A similar argument can be made for the other 3 known forces, the strong force, the weak force and the electromagnetic force. In the end science falls short to explain them. [4] Since science is not made to answer the why-questions, demanding answers to such questions from science would be nothing short of foolishness. If anyone claims to know

why this universe exists on the basis of science and scientific methods, for example, he doesnt really understand science or what its built to do (Again, the importance of personal interpretation steps in here). I wish to go down yet another tangent here, I promise this is relevant. Many people claim that science rules out religion. Their argument is, before the advent of science, men attributed natural phenomena to supernatural force(s). God, therefore, was believed to be the sustainer and cherisher of the Universe, engaged in active control of everything. However now that science has progressed, we can attribute all natural phenomena to natural causes themselves, hence this refutes the religious notion that God or gods control the phenomena of this universe. However, this argument stems from the misunderstanding about the actual scope of science. As noted above, science tends to answer how, not why. However religion answers why, not how. Take this for example: Why does an apple fall to the ground instead of floating in midair? Lets ask this question to religion and science prior to scientific progress. Science answers: I do not know. Religion answers: because God wills it to fall. And after scientific progress: Science answers: Because of gravity. Religion answers: because God wills it to fall. Note how the answer of science changes, because once it did not know the howness of this phenomenon, but now it does. Religion however was never concerned with howness, it was concerned with whyness. Therefore even after scientific progress its answer is still the same. The theist would claim that scientific progress merely answers how the will of God is executed in nature, but doesnt contend the fact that the reason the apple fell was because of Divine directions. So therefore, no matter however much science progresses, it can never replace religion, and in all the years of its progress, it has not reduced the dominion of religion in the least. This is because of the fact that the two are concerned with different questions, so they can coexist without contradicting each other [5]. Of course, it would be unfair to expect religion to answer sciences questions and thereby replacing science either. We need to keep science and religion in their proper places and understand what they are meant to do, and more importantly, what they arent meant to do. Conclusion The sentiment behind this paper was, in fact, reactionary. Especially in todays netlectual culture, all too often what are seen are instances of grave misinterpretation and

misconceptions of and about science. These result from not understanding basic concepts about the nature of science, what it seeks to answer, what falls within and especially what falls beyond its authority and so on. Religion, for example, is pitted against science almost matter-of-factly; giving the impression that science in and of itself is anti-religious and free thought is to be equated with atheism [6]. Some wishful thinkers even suggest that religion is to be gradually eroded by the progress of science. This is absurd, because as demonstrated before, the very questions religion and science try to answer are different, religion answers why, and science answers how. The only way there can be a contradiction between these two fields is if we place our interpretations on the factual nature of science, thereby forcefully causing science to produce a why answer. This is a clash not between science and religion, but rather a specific interpretation of science, which may or may not be factual, vs. religion. The very thought of a description of the factual processes that occur in this universe to contradict with a system which is involved in answering the metaphysical reality behind these processes is ridiculous. Science, for example, can answer the earliest stages of creation; how one interprets these stages are subject to ones personal opinions. One can explain these facts by positing a primal Cause (prime mover), or proposing that it all existed by itself. Both of these are interpretations, which of them are correct is a job for the logician to detect, not the scientist. One can look at the creation and attribute to it purpose and design, while looking at these same facts one can say this is random and subject to the directionless fancy of nature. Again, both of these are interpretations, demonstrations of how one chooses to look at science. Given science as the only criterion, none of these interpretations are any less faithful than the other. So attributing blindness to religious faith alone, while any other interpretation of science is just as blind, is bigoted narrowmindedness resulting not from clarity of thought but rather bias. Why there is such a high degree of anti-religious bias extant in todays world, that is a whole other topic. Perhaps this trend is reactionary to the dont think just believe stereotype about religion, which may hold true for certain religions but not for all; or perhaps its reminiscent of the revolution against the opium of the people portrayal of theocracy, consisting of suppression of free thought and the infamous inquisitions. Perhaps all these extremities done in the middle ages by people of religious authority called to the heavens for a philosophy to counter them, resulting in the prevalent anti-religious bias. However these things are not justification to our fanciful and irrational manipulation of science. As a matter of fact this tendency makes us no better than the very bigots we claim to stand up against. So I guess the take-home point of this essay can be summarized in the following words: Dont be like the individual who says yes when the masses say yes and no when the masses say no. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) Post-conclusion Admittedly, this is off-topic. As demonstrated in the paper above, science doesnt oppose religion or worldviews in general per se. What, however, is sciences role, if any, to determine the truth of a worldview? How do we know if a worldview is true or not, and what considerations/criteria can aptly gauge this truth?

These are valid yet off-topic questions that can be dealt with in another paper. The reason I introduced these questions is to acknowledge their validity. Theres a slim possibility that this paper can be (mistakenly) taken to imply that as for religions and worldviews, its all a matter of faith with no substance (blind faith as it is called). But again, this is a whole other issue, deserving of another article perhaps. Im grateful for the following people in helping me tweak this paper: Deepanjan Roy Hamed Haque Abdul-Fattah Dhondt Sadat Husain Riajul Islam Richard Dunne _________________________________________________________________

[1] This is a very simplified description of the scientific process; and this experimenthypothesis-theory sequence might or might not be always applied. A scientist can even start with just an assumption (hypothesis) and construct experiments to test its merit. In this case, the hypothesis would precede experiments. However the details of the scientific method are not of much relevance to our discussion and it doesnt really affect the validity of the point we are trying to establish here; the point being science relies solely upon observation i.e. empirical evidence. [2] Here some people may object by saying not everyone has a worldview. However this is not true, every single human being consciously or unconsciously builds a worldview of his or her own. We need not equate religions (or strict disbelief thereof) as a worldview: even the dont know dont care agnostic has a worldview, that of apathy. [3] Taken from: "The Story of Philosophy", Introduction: On the Uses of Philosophy. [4] Taken from: http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/fundamentalism.htm (highly recommended site!) [5] Unless a scientific fact confronts a scriptural statement, which is another issue. What is being talked about here is the religious notion of there being a cherisher and sustainer of this universe vs. science ruling such a possibility out. [6] In all fairness, even theists have their own fallacies in dealing with science. Swayed by the scientific trend nowadays of ruling out religion, some theists try, unsuccessfully of course, to come up with scientific evidence for God. This is nonsensical; science can only grip what is observable, and God, at least by the admission of the major religions nowadays, cannot be placed in a vial and under a microscope for experimenting. Whether

there is any other evidence for the existence of God (inferential etc.) is, as stated above, a whole other debate. Also another notable fallacy committed by some theists is to undermine sciences authority in dealing with empirical realities. An example of this could be the all-too-often sited example of science admitting the existence of air without seeing it. The logical fallacy here is obvious, seeing isnt the only way to observe things. We should stand guard against fallacies from both sides, but the focus of this paper was the unjust manipulation of science to rule out religion.