In this blog post, we’ll examine the philosophical debates surrounding the objectivity and rationality of science and reflect on how we should understand science.

To what extent can we trust the objectivity and absoluteness of science?

In modern societies, including South Korea, we often use the term “scientific” when explaining the credibility of a claim. Furthermore, so-called “unscientific” statements lacking scientific evidence are often considered to have relatively little value. Thus, science holds an unspoken authority in today’s society, and the perception that “science is objective and rational” is widely accepted. However, it is worth questioning whether something claimed to be scientifically proven is truly an absolute and unchanging truth.
For example, let’s examine Newton’s First Law. For us to call Newton’s First Law an indisputable truth, it must be deducible from more fundamental, already established laws or empirically validated. However, since the law of inertia is one of the most fundamental laws of mechanics, it is difficult to justify it based on principles even more fundamental than itself. Furthermore, even if we avoid the fallacy of inductive generalization, it is virtually impossible to actually experience a “state in which no force is acting,” since every object with mass in the universe exerts gravitational force. Therefore, empirical justification is also not straightforward.
Even a cursory examination reveals that it is difficult to say that physics—considered the most systematic of disciplines—possesses a completely unshakable foundation. If that is the case, the attitude of accepting the scientific knowledge accumulated upon that foundation as absolute truth without any doubt can also be problematic. However, we must also guard against extreme skepticism that dismisses all scientific facts as baseless mirages or mere wordplay on the grounds of this imperfection. This is because humanity has accumulated science and technology over a long period of time, and the advancement of science has significantly transformed human life. From here on, we will examine to what extent science can possess objectivity and rationality, and if it is not perfect, we will consider from what perspective we should view science.
The law of inertia states that, in the absence of external forces, an object will remain at rest or continue to move in uniform linear motion.

Can inductivism guarantee the objectivity of science?

The debate over whether scientific theories are objective and rational has long been a central theme in the philosophy of science. The most representative example is inductivism. Although inductivism remains a view of science that many scientists and the general public naturally accept, it has fundamental limitations.
According to inductivism, we derive scientific generalizations from pure observation, uninfluenced by any other premises. It also holds that by controlling these observations, science can explore nature as it is, thereby maintaining scientific objectivity. However, can scientific objectivity and rationality truly be sufficiently secured in this manner?
First, we need to examine whether generalization from observation is even possible. The issues of uncertainty and justification in inductive proof have been consistently raised since the time of the philosopher David Hume. Hume argued that, from the perspective of strict logic, generalizing from cases we have experienced to cases we have not experienced cannot be justified. In other words, no matter how many cases we examine, we cannot be logically certain that the next case will yield the same result.
Humans can only examine a finite number of cases. Therefore, it is practically impossible to verify every single case before making a generalization. This is precisely the problem with inductive generalization.
Another point of contention is whether “objective observation”—free of any presuppositions—is actually possible. Even if this were an ideal goal, it is difficult to deny the fact that historically significant scientific theories were not—and could not have been—developed in this manner. It is practically impossible for humans, with their finite capabilities, to collect infinite amounts of data without any bias or hypotheses and expect knowledge to emerge spontaneously from it. Scientists always formulate hypotheses and collect data to test them. This process inevitably involves imagination, intuition, and a certain degree of subjectivity. For this reason, the complete objectivity and rationality advocated by inductivism are difficult to achieve in reality.
Induction is a mode of thinking that performs generalization based on the observation and statement of specific facts, thereby deriving universal statements that encompass not only past and present experiences but also future cases.

How did Popper explain the rationality of science?

As inductivism ran into these limitations and the rationality of science began to waver, Karl Popper sought to resolve the issue from an entirely different perspective. According to Popper’s view of science, scientists—like Kepler and Newton—propose bold and comprehensive theories based on free and creative imagination. These theories are then subjected to the strictest possible verification against the way the world actually exists. If a flaw is discovered during this verification process, the theory is discarded.
A true scientist does not merely attempt to prove their theory unconditionally or claim that it is highly probable. Rather, just like the principle of natural selection, scientific theories must prove their explanatory power through fierce competition and survive only if no decisive flaws are found even after repeated verification. Popper viewed the scientific community as forming the most ideal open society through this process, because anyone can propose new ideas and theories, and anyone can freely critique them. In this regard, he argued that science is a highly rational system.
Popper’s argument is significant in that, unlike so-called “refined inductivism”—which sought to slightly supplement existing inductivism—it bypassed the problem of induction itself to propose a new solution. Through this, he sought to explain why science is more rational than other systems of knowledge.
However, Popper’s argument also has several limitations. A prime example is the problem of observation. Generally, falsification occurs through observation, but the objectivity and accuracy of observation itself cannot always be trusted.
A prime example is the astronomical observations of Tycho Brahe. Tycho Brahe, who was Kepler’s mentor, was the person who conducted the most precise astronomical observations in the era before the invention of the telescope. He endeavored to measure the annual parallax of stars—which had been presented as evidence for the Earth’s revolution around the Sun—but was unable to confirm it with the observational equipment available at the time. As a result, he was unable to accept Copernicus’s heliocentric theory and maintained his position that the Earth was the center of the universe. However, as more precise observational techniques emerged later, it was confirmed that stellar parallax does indeed exist. Ultimately, his refutation stemmed from the limitations of observational technology.
This example demonstrates that even observations we believe to be highly precise may always have technical limitations, and that refutations based on such observations cannot rule out the possibility of reaching erroneous conclusions.

Can humans truly perceive the world objectively?

The discussion we have examined so far shows how humanity’s perspective on science has changed throughout history. Looking at this trajectory, we can see that the belief that science possesses absolute objectivity has gradually come under question. The fact that science—which was once considered the most rational means of uncovering the truth of the world—lacks complete objectivity is quite shocking.
The question that naturally arises here is, “Can humans truly perceive truth as it is?”
First, the human five senses do not perceive the world as it is. When we “see” an object, it involves light reflected from that object entering our eyes and being interpreted by the brain. However, the human eye cannot detect the entire spectrum of electromagnetic waves; it can only perceive a very limited range of visible light. Furthermore, in the microscopic world of atoms, even the light used for observation can affect the object being observed. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the world we see accurately reflects reality.
Thus, due to our biological limitations, humans cannot observe the world completely objectively. In other words, there is an inherent aspect to all observations relying on human senses—and to all conclusions drawn from those observations—that makes it difficult to guarantee absolute correctness.
Even if we were to explain science in a different way, setting aside the imperfections of induction and observation, actual scientific research cannot be conducted without observation and experience. Ultimately, since science is also an activity in which humans observe and interpret natural phenomena, it is difficult to guarantee complete objectivity.
So, can we truly say that science is rational? Here, too, the limitations of human observation still have an impact. Even assuming that observations were sufficiently accurate, it is not easy to fully guarantee rationality. Generally, the selection of a rational theory is described as the process of examining the relationship between evidence and various hypotheses in a logical manner to select the most appropriate hypothesis. However, it is not easy to clearly define what is “logical.” In fact, the wave and particle nature of light—which appear difficult to reconcile—both possess characteristics confirmed experimentally, and modern physics accepts this duality.
The human eye can generally perceive only visible light in the range of approximately 400–700 nm; although electromagnetic waves with shorter or longer wavelengths exist, they cannot be seen directly.

What significance does science hold when it manifests itself in the world through science and technology?

If neither objectivity nor rationality can be fully guaranteed, what significance does science hold in society? Science clearly possesses the power that enabled humanity to send people to the moon. I believe it is more appropriate to understand this power in terms of “science and technology” rather than simply the concept of “science” itself.
Science does not stop at merely formulating theories; it drives technological advancement, which in turn has a direct impact on our daily lives. In other words, it can be said that science only truly reveals itself to the world through science and technology. And at the very least, we place considerable trust in the science and technology we use in our daily lives.
Newtonian physics evolved into Einstein’s theory of relativity, and physics has continued to expand with new theories ever since. Nevertheless, Newtonian mechanics still provides exceptional explanatory and predictive power on an everyday scale, and numerous modern engineering technologies are based on it. Furthermore, humanity not only landed on the Moon through the Apollo program but continues to pursue lunar exploration and crewed lunar missions even today. The fact that scientific theories continue to advance does not mean that existing technologies become entirely obsolete. Rather, new theories complement areas that existing theories could not explain, further driving the advancement of science and technology.
Of course, the pace at which technology actually implements these theories may be relatively slow compared to the pace of scientific advancement. Therefore, this perspective may be somewhat simplistic when applied to explaining cutting-edge scientific theories as a whole. Nevertheless, I believe it is sufficiently meaningful as one perspective for explaining why science has been respected and has contributed significantly to the development of human civilization.
Science, which we have long taken for granted as objective and rational, is not actually quite that way. In the process of developing theories based on observations derived from nature, the objectivity of the observations themselves can always be called into question, and it is difficult to view the process of arriving at a theory as one driven solely by pure rationality.
However, it is difficult to completely overcome the fundamental limitations of human beings through science alone, which is just one of many human activities. Perhaps the truth has always existed beyond the easy reach of human hands. Nevertheless, it remains difficult to deny that science is the method that allows us to come closest to that truth.
Even if science is an endeavor that pursues not absolute truth but an “approximate truth” that is constantly revised and refined, the science and technology developed through this process have made our lives more convenient and prosperous. Therefore, science is neither something to be blindly worshipped nor, conversely, something to be completely distrusted. Science can be viewed as one of humanity’s most powerful intellectual activities, one that continually evolves through critical examination and ongoing verification.

Type // !

Focus an input and type your dropdown trigger to search shortcuts.

Dismiss