Is It Scientism to Claim Everything Unexplained Will Be Explained by Science?
As a science enthusiast and a skeptic, I often find myself questioning the ultimate reach of scientific knowledge. Skepticism, defined as the critical examination of claims without relying on blind acceptance, is an integral part of the scientific method. However, not all skeptics are equally enthusiastic about the capability of science to explain everything. This article delves into the intricacies of whether pursuing a belief that everything unexplained will eventually be explained by science is tantamount to scientism.
The Skeptic's Perspective
Skepticism, while fostering critical thinking, does not necessarily preclude scientific pursuit. A skeptic holds no inherent anti-science stance but critically evaluates claims, often demanding empirical evidence before blind acceptance. This cautious approach acknowledges that scientific progress is ongoing and that not everything is yet understood. How, then, does one reconcile the belief in the ultimate explanatory power of science with the possibility that some phenomena might remain inexplicable?
Exploring the Limitations of Science
Scientific methodologies, while powerful, have limitations. One of the most significant challenges is the ongoing integration of classical physics with quantum physics. This conundrum, alongside numerous other unanswered questions, such as the nature of dark matter and dark energy, underscores the vast frontier of unexplored knowledge. The observable universe, though expanding, remains but a fraction of the greater cosmic canvas. As for philosophical questions, the ‘hard problems’ of causality, the nature of consciousness, and the origins of the universe remain far from clear.
Consider the insights from ancient texts like the Bible, where the verse “Nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nothing hidden that will not be made known” from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount seems to resonate with contemporary scientific discourse, hinting at a destined completion of knowledge. However, whether this destiny is real remains a matter of debate.
Scientific Method vs. Unexplained Phenomena
The scientific method assumes that all phenomena have a physical cause with a definite mathematical form—laws of nature. However, the continual progress of science does not equate to a complete understanding. Science can make great strides, but it cannot predict or guarantee that it will ever reach an end point. Ray Solomonoff’s General Theory of Inductive Inference captures this process well. Despite ongoing advancements, there’s always room for new discoveries and questions.
On the other hand, assuming science can explain every aspect of consciousness, creativity, moral reasoning, and other abstract concepts presents significant challenges. Some argue that attempting to fully explain the creation of scientific theories or the nature of consciousness risks a form of scientism, an overreliance on scientific explanations for questions that science alone might not resolve.
The Debate and the Future
The debate over the ultimate explanatory reach of science encapsulates a broader discussion about the limits of our cognitive capabilities. While scientific methodology has yielded unprecedented insights, some phenomena may always elude complete scientific explanation. Whether this is due to inherent limitations or simply a testament to the depth and complexity of the universe, remains an open question.
In conclusion, the belief that all unexplained phenomena will eventually be explained by science is a philosophical stance rather than a scientific prediction. Skepticism, as a critical framework, supports a balanced view that acknowledges both the potential and the limits of scientific pursuits. As we continue to push the boundaries of knowledge, the boundary between explainable and unexplainable phenomena will continually evolve.