In this blog post, we will critically look at the popular belief surrounding the boundary between science and non-science and talk about the deeper insights we are missing.
The philosophy of science is very difficult. Many people believe that we need to distinguish between science and non-science, so we need to delve into the nature of science to clarify the boundary between the two. So, what is the purpose of trying to distinguish between science and non-science? This attempt is based on the belief that “scientific things are reliable.” In other words, it is the belief that non-scientific things are completely unreliable. Science has long been a field of study that has been given more authority than it actually deserves. Some argue that science and religion are the same in that they both deal with objects, and that science has gone beyond its original purpose to gain blind trust from people in the past and present alike. That is why pseudo-science is rampant. When you present a suitable sample group, statistical figures, and related scientific phenomena, the credibility naturally increases. Even though people think it is nonsense in the back of their minds, the credibility increases.
Therefore, great philosophers of science such as Karl Raimund Popper have proposed criteria for distinguishing between science and pseudoscience. Popper seems to have thought deeply about this issue. The criteria for science that he proposed can be said to be the highest intellectual standards that can come from the realm of the intellect of a scientist. If you judge things that are ambiguous as to whether they are science or pseudoscience by this standard, most of them will be concluded to be pseudoscience. A typical example is traditional Korean medicine. Since traditional Korean medicine is based on the theory of yin and yang and the five elements, it is considered unscientific and cannot be disproved. But is traditional Korean medicine really unscientific? Anyone who has ever visited a traditional Korean medicine clinic is probably wondering about this conclusion. It is certainly scientific and valid for a traditional Korean medicine doctor to explain something while looking at a model of the human body. In addition, the efficacy of the herbal ingredients contained in the prescribed herbal medicine has been scientifically verified. In fact, many people experience the effects of herbal medicine. There is much room for objection to conclude that the background of Korean medicine is unscientific and that the study is not science just because it cannot be scientifically disproved.
This common belief plays a big role in the question. The proposition that “science is the truth, and anything that is not science is a pseudo” is the common belief. This proposition can be dangerous. Of all the things created by humans, there is nothing that is made up of pure science. Humans also create products by collecting the knowledge they know to satisfy their psychological needs. The same is true when creating and classifying academic disciplines. Science is just one component of that discipline. Another reason why this is dangerous is that some people try to use science to deny things that were never in the realm of science to begin with. A classic example is the never-ending battle between creationism and evolution. Creationists try to extend the realm of faith into science, while evolutionists treat creationists’ beliefs and faith as pseudoscience based on science. They do not understand the essence of things with different roots and try to undermine their value based solely on scientific standards.
The same is true of the aforementioned Korean medicine. Korean medicine is a discipline that includes both parts that can be explained by science and those that cannot. The theory of yin-yang and the five elements is not just about yin-yang and the five elements, but also contains the awe and humility of humans towards the world and the universe. The reason why the theory of yin-yang and the five elements is the foundation of Korean medicine is not because it is the basic principle for governing the qi of the human body, but because the ancestors of the East were convinced that the human body came from nature and wanted to emphasize this fact. We cannot undermine the value of Korean medicine because it is unscientific and cannot be disproved without looking at the human psychology and desires projected in this way. Creationism, too, cannot undermine the value of Christians’ faith simply because it cannot be disproved.
Science may be a component of many disciplines, but depending on the situation, it may play a central role. However, this does not mean that other things are excluded from the process of explaining the object. Other elements are also playing their role. Take physics as an example. Physics analyzes the patterns of natural phenomena and makes them the principles of nature. Then who decides the direction that physics should take? It is humans. Humans use science to build rockets, ships, and weapons. The process is influenced by human psychology and desires. Scientific outputs no longer remain in academia, but have an impact on society and people. Natural patterns always exist, but the science used by humans is variable and resilient. The driving force is not science, but human desire.
In particular, the intermediate stage of giving substance to science is ‘engineering’. Strictly speaking, it has a different meaning, but it can also be used interchangeably with ‘technology’. Science exists as it is, but people try to give substance to science through engineering and technology. In this process, science is mistaken for a tool. At the same time, trust in things that are not science decreases.
Immanuel Kant said that humans should be treated as ends, not as means. The same is true for science. Technology is a means, but the discipline of science should be treated as an end. Using science as a weapon to unconditionally slander unscientific practices is tantamount to undermining the value of the discipline. Science is already fulfilling its role because it is the truth as it is. Also, rejecting what is not scientific is like turning away from human desires and the mysteries of nature. Humans have become more arrogant than ever before, and the more we learn, the more we fear that the existing world will be shattered. As a result, we may be putting forward false arrogance. Those who know the essence of science should look at the world with a more humble perspective so as not to lose sight of things that are more important than science.
