Is Science Free From assumptions?
Let us give space to alternative methods of knowledge in Mainstream Science.
So here is an interesting question ,is science free from assumptions?
We grew up in an environment, where we were taught, Science to be an absolute authority of knowledge, where you are not supposed to question the temple of Science. Indeed this idea still pervades the common masses ,the education system and the media.
Suppose somebody questions evolution ,immediately he will be subject to attack from media and others, that hey here is an irrational believer, and he would not be given the chance to explain his position. this sort of practice does not appear to be different from what used to be in the days of an orthodox church where people were not supposed to question, the authority of church.
it seems that Modern Science has become a new orthodox religion. However fact of the matter is, that nothing is free from assumptions, even science is not.
“I am all in favour of science and reason if they are scientific and reasonable. But I am against granting scientists and the materialist worldview an exemption from critical thinking and sceptical investigation. We need an enlightenment of the Enlightenment.17”
― Rupert Sheldrake, The Science Delusion: Feeling the Spirit of Enquiry
Here I will explain a few assumption which are as follows
Assumption No 1-Our senses are perfect, and therefore gives us perfect Knowledge -Common scientific method assumes, form of the world to be real and original.
Lets take an example -imagine a person is wearing Red spectacles then world would appear to be Red, another case if person is wearing blue spectacles the world would appear to be blue ,However world is Neither Red nor Blue.
Now if our senses are considered to be an instrument like spectacles, from which we the observe the world, then the reality that we observe is certainly subject to distortion.
Now this assumption is true or false is a subject of debate and certainly it should be debated ,but imagine for instance if this is true then we are wrong at the first step itself that means wrong observation ,and if first observation itself is wrong then how can it give birth to true knowledge.
Assumptions no 2-Determinism -every effect must have a cause-
the whole scientific process works on the assumption that every cause has an effect therefore every effect must have a cause.
let us consider it to be true for a while -according to it, all our action can be determined by observing the relation between cause and effect, and hence we can say that even our thoughts are product of cause and effect .therefore every thing would be predetermined . but, then question arises where is the free will, and if there is no free will, then why are we trying to differentiate, right from wrong. Why are we writing books to prove one theory better form the other. why are we doing campaigns to prove my ideology better then yours. This is indeed a great paradox.
however, our experience of the world is counter intuitive. We live our life for a reason. We take birth ,we go school ,the college etc we don’t think our lives are predetermined.
It’s almost as if science said, “Give me one free miracle, and from there the entire thing will proceed with a seamless, causal explanation.”’17 The one free miracle was the sudden appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe, with all the laws that govern it.”
― Rupert Sheldrake, The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry
Assumption No 3.extrapolating, small scale observation on to the whole reality-
we observe events conditioned by time and space, and we formulate certain laws and then we extrapolate these laws onto the entire reality. However this is not true ,that is why we have changing theories all the time.
Darwin gave his theory based on certain observation but today we have new Darwinism based on new observation as we have advanced technology to observe microscopic phenomena occurring within a cell.
Similarly, classical physics was true as long quantum did not come into picture, and subsequently we will see many such changing theories in coming years without a doubt as we go on observing new events in coming future.
So Question here arises if our theories are changing within a fraction of eternal time then how can we ever know that what is really real.
Assumption No 4-chemicals gave birth to human consciousness -
this is widely held belief in the scientific community, that consciousness is part of human, and has arisen as a matter of certain chemical combination.
However by Now, there is substantial research work done by Dr Ian stevneson and others related to the event of reincarnation, and evidence suggests that consciousness exist outside of the brain.
Purpose why I wrote this article-
1.Human psyche is naturally searching for conclusive knowledge, and in reality conclusive knowledge should be called knowledge, rest are just temporary truth coming today and gone tomorrow, or we can call it relative knowledge.Here is the question, how can we know what is Absolute Knowledge.
2.Should we also not give space to alternative method of learning in mainstream science rather then simply denouncing them, just because they don’t support our assumptions?
3.if scientific methodology is also working on the basis of these assumption then, should we also not openly teach our students, that scientific methodology also works on the basis of assumptions rather then secretly hiding it.so that they can become better learners rather dogmatic.
For more such content -Join My Facebook Group- Vedic Mysticism and scientific Dogmatism