In this blog post, we will explore whether science is truth or merely a convincing belief system through the history of science, the evolution of scientific theories, and the subjectivity of the analytical process.
The future of human society
Let’s imagine the future of human society. What comes to mind first? Most people probably imagine a world where science and technology have advanced to the point where self-driving cars run on the roads, artificial intelligence handles office work, and all diseases can be diagnosed and treated early so that people can live healthily until the age of 100. Most people’s image of a research laboratory is probably similar to that of a laboratory. As can be seen from the above examples, science has a very high status in modern society. The term “science” here includes not only pure natural sciences and technology, but also mathematics. In short, science is considered an absolute discipline. Objectivity, an important characteristic of science, can only be achieved through scientific methods such as experimentation, observation, and analysis.
In addition, a new field of study called economic physics has emerged, which applies the theories of physics to economic phenomena, and many fields use scientific methods that model and analyze given situations as their main research methods. Scientists also have a significant influence on social issues. In issues such as the construction of nuclear power plants, the analysis of scientists greatly influences government policy decisions and public opinion. Science seems to be a very objective and reliable discipline with absolute influence in modern society, but this is not the case. Science is just a belief system, like Christianity and humanism. Let’s look at the reasons why science is just a religion.
The volatility and limitations of scientific theories
There are many examples in history that show that scientific theories are not absolute. There are cases where existing theories have collapsed and new theories have been formed. This happened when quantum mechanics appeared. Before the advent of quantum mechanics, the prevailing view in the physics community was that “there are no more phenomena in the universe that cannot be analyzed.” It was thought that all problems had been solved with the creation of Maxwell’s equations, which unified the previously problematic phenomena of magnetism and electricity. However, phenomena that could not be explained by classical physics were discovered. Blackbody radiation, the line spectrum of hydrogen atoms, and the photoelectric effect were completely impossible to explain by classical physics, or the explanations were very different from the observed results.
Several scientists proposed ideas to solve these problems, and the theories based on these ideas were able to make predictions that matched the experimental results. However, these ideas often contradicted existing common sense and concepts of physics, and therefore, the newly created theory of quantum mechanics was completely different from classical physics. From the outset, the two theories had different perspectives on natural phenomena. Classical mechanics assumed that if you had accurate information about the situation of an object (initial velocity, initial position, forces acting on it, etc.), , it is possible to predict all of the object’s movements through theoretical analysis and even analyze the past. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, states that it is impossible to accurately measure all of the information about an object, and that the movements of objects are not deterministic but probabilistic, and are determined by our observations.
As can be seen in the development of quantum mechanics, science is not a fixed discipline. When a phenomenon that cannot be explained by existing theories is discovered, a new theory that explains that phenomenon and encompasses existing theories replaces the existing theory. Therefore, when a theory changes, analyses and predictions that differ from existing ones may emerge. Therefore, it is not correct to think that science is absolute.
However, it is rare for existing theories to be completely replaced by new theories, as in the case of the development of quantum mechanics. The reason why existing theories have been able to remain unchanged is that they have been able to explain natural phenomena known to date. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that scientific theories will change until unusual phenomena are observed. From this perspective, science may be absolute for a short period of time. However, even if we accept this perspective, we cannot say that the results of applying a theory are absolute.
Religious characteristics of science
Scientific theories themselves are developed purely through mathematical formulas, expressions, and logical reasoning, without any subjective intervention. Therefore, scientific theories themselves can be considered absolute as long as they remain unchanged. However, scientific theories themselves have no practical meaning. They are merely laws that govern natural phenomena and do not provide us with any practical information. The only way to obtain practical information from scientific theories is to analyze a given situation. For example, when constructing a nuclear power plant in a specific area, it is possible to predict the risk of accidents at the plant by applying theories based on information such as the structure of the plant and the topography and characteristics of the area. It is also possible to analyze the causes of accidents by analyzing the surrounding environment after a natural disaster or human error has occurred.
In this way, science has practical significance in inferring past situations and predicting future events through analysis. The subjective judgment of scientists inevitably comes into play in this analytical process. Analysis in science is the process of analyzing data. The results of the analysis are derived from the relationships between data and overall trends in the data. If the relationships between data and data trends match the theory exactly, then it is only necessary to determine whether they match or not, and the subjectivity of scientists does not come into play. In reality, however, various external factors and errors in the measuring equipment itself cause discrepancies between the actual results and the theoretical predictions.
The process of interpreting these errors and the way they are handled vary depending on the scientist, so the scientist’s subjectivity comes into play when analyzing in reality. Of course, there are frameworks for analyzing these errors. However, even results filtered by these frameworks can be analyzed differently depending on the subjectivity and perspective of the person analyzing them. The difference between the results you expected or predicted in an ideal situation and the actual experimental results may be considered simply as errors in the experimental process, but it may also be due to factors that were not taken into account when applying the theory. In other words, even if the same data is analyzed, the results may differ depending on the perspective. Due to this characteristic, information obtained through science is not absolute.
Objectivity and truthfulness of science
Scientific theories can change over time, and analysis results also vary depending on the subjectivity and perspective of scientists, so science cannot be considered absolute. However, the fact that science is not absolute does not immediately justify science as a religion such as humanism. Let’s look at what characteristics of science have religious characteristics. Religion can be defined simply as a belief system shared by many people. Religion is formed when people who believe in its basic tenets expand their belief system based on those tenets. Christianity is a belief system established by people who believe that the Bible is the true story of God, and humanism is also merely a belief system established by people who believe that all humans are equal.
Because religion is a belief system shared by people, those who do not share it cannot understand it. People who do not believe in Christianity will not understand the story of Noah’s Ark, and people who believe that humans are inherently divided into classes will not accept humanism, which holds that all humans have equal value. Religion also provides a framework for viewing the world to those who believe in it. People who believe in religion try to explain what happens in the world within their belief system and consider such explanations to be valid. From a Christian perspective, humans are superior to other animals because they are the chosen species of God. From a humanistic perspective, humans are more important than other animals because all values depend on how humans feel, and therefore the experiences of other animals have no value.
Both arguments seem irrational, but people who live within their respective belief systems believe that these arguments are valid. Science has all of these characteristics of religion. First, science has developed based on the belief that phenomena occurring in nature can be expressed as mathematical laws. In other words, science has developed various theories based on the assumption that there are laws governing phenomena in nature and that nothing can happen that violates those laws. If this assumption is false, then the purpose of science disappears, and all efforts made thus far may be meaningless.
Looking at the current interpretation of quantum mechanics, the events of nature are unpredictable, and all of our actions, even our very existence, can change the direction of natural phenomena. In other words, it is difficult to be certain that there are laws that are independent of human influence. There may be laws governing approximate results, but there may not be any fundamental laws. In addition, scientists conduct their research based on the belief that previously discovered or completed theories are correct. Of course, unlike other religions, the existing theories they believe in have been proven through experiments that are considered objective, but in the sense that they believe in something they have not confirmed and expand their belief system based on that, it can be seen as having characteristics of religion.
People who are ignorant of science will not accept scientific explanations. Science has all the characteristics of religion because it provides a framework for understanding natural phenomena. In other words, science is nothing more than a belief system made up of various beliefs.
The persuasiveness and social influence of science
Like Christianity and humanism, science is merely a belief system, so why has it come to have a greater influence on modern society than other religions? This is because the main weapons used by science are logic and visibility. Most of the claims made by other religions cannot be observed and verified. However, the claims made by science can be observed and verified. Therefore, even people who did not believe in science will inevitably be convinced if they continuously confirm what science claims.
Of course, it can be argued that existing religions are also easily convincing when one has a spiritual experience, but such experiences are very rare, so they are less convincing than science. However, as I have not had such an experience myself, it is difficult to refute this argument logically. Science logically derives various conclusions from a few basic principles (laws). Logic seems to be universally inherent in all human beings. Not only science but also previous religions have attempted to persuade people logically.
Previous religions failed, but science succeeded. This is because once people are convinced of the most fundamental principles through their own eyes, it is easy to spread other beliefs. Religion failed because it is too difficult to make people believe in fundamental principles. In other words, science has been able to reach its current position because it is easy to verify what it says with our eyes and extend it through logical reasoning. As many people came to believe in science and trust what it says, the status of science has risen. Through science, we have learned that visibility (common sense) and logic are the keys to persuasion, and these two qualities have come to be considered important virtues in human society.
The objectivity and limitations of science
We consider science to be an objective discipline because of these two virtues. Logic is shared by all human beings, and what I see is observed in the same way by everyone else, so we believe that science possesses objectivity, which means seeing and thinking about things from a third-party perspective, detached from one’s own perspective. I do not want to deny that science is an objective discipline. Logic is shared by all of humanity, and observation is the same for everyone, so it is undoubtedly an objective discipline. However, being objective does not mean that something is true or real. It simply means that everyone thinks so in the current situation, but it does not mean that nature actually behaves that way or that global warming is actually happening.
This is because science is only a religion and a belief system, not the actual principles of nature. We believe in science only because it explains nature well. Therefore, scientific predictions themselves can be wrong, and analysis results can be interpreted differently depending on the scientist, so there is a possibility that the analysis results are also wrong. In other words, science may not be the truth. The results presented by science are nothing more than what humanity currently believes will happen.
Conclusion
Science, like humanism, is just a belief system (religion). Furthermore, its contents are not absolute. However, thanks to the persuasiveness of its logic and visibility (common sense), science has become the religion that rules the world. These characteristics of science have made it an objective discipline, which has led to more people trusting it. However, we have confirmed that being objective does not mean that science is true. We are often deceived by the mask of objectivity that science wears, and mistakenly believe that science is the truth. Since science is not the truth, we must always live with the suspicion that the results presented by science may be wrong.
In everyday life, such suspicion is not necessary. This is because, as mentioned above, science can be regarded as absolute knowledge insofar as it can be explained by scientific theories. However, such suspicion is necessary when analyzing results obtained by applying scientific theories. This is because science itself is imperfect, and the analyses of scientists may not be true or objective. Rather than blindly trusting science, I believe that the best way to utilize the religion of science is to take a step back, question it, and examine the perspectives of various scientists.
