In the present epoch, modern science is an integral part of society. Modern science developed along with Western society, and it has influenced and was influenced by development of technology, economics, methods of war, and culture.
As part of a culture, philosophy has a special relevance to modern science. Although modern science has now specialized into distinct professional fields and normally does not engage in philosophy, when serious attempts are made to break through the limitations of a scientific theory, philosophy still plays a vital role in guiding the greatest pioneers in science to make advances.
Philosophy can do this because it is not confined to the framework of a particular scientific theory. The power of philosophy derives from the power of the human mind, which can consciously and rationally reason about almost any subject.
However, there is a greater force than philosophy that exerts influence on the human mind: the force of culture and language.
In the West where modern science was born, a systematic method of reasoning was developed by the ancient Greeks. The method of reasoning had a powerful influence on Western culture and language regarding what is considered truth and knowledge.
In modern times, this type of reasoning, especially deductive reasoning, has been transformed into an extreme form. This development has affected three key areas of Western culture that are closely tied to the development of modern science: philosophy, mathematics, and physics.
Common Issues of Paradox
While philosophy, mathematics, and physics may appear to be very different, with the shared modes of deductive thinking, they have common issues. In each of the three areas, the pursuit of absolute completeness and consistency of knowledge led to contradictions.
In physics, scientists tried to develop a complete and consistent mathematical theory that could in principle describe and predict a myriad of physical phenomena. But after decades of struggling toward that goal, the uncertainty principle emerged at the heart of physics. In a microcosm, matter appears to possess dual and inconsistent concepts of wave and particle at the same time.
In formal logic, as people attempted to completely and consistently model all of mathematics in an axiomatic formal system, Gödel proved that no axiomatic formal system with the power to model arithmetic can be both complete and consistent at the same time. Such a formal system must be either incomplete or inconsistent. If such a formal system is complete, then it would derive contradictory statements that are both true and false at the same time.
In philosophy, generations of thinkers tried to determine the ultimate nature of things through reasoning, assuming that a logical consistent chain of reasoning would lead to correct conclusions. Finally, Kant showed that such metaphysical endeavors involving pure reason well beyond human experience will inevitably lead to contradictions where a thesis and its antithesis are equally valid.
In all these endeavors, attempts to achieve absolute completeness and consistency seemed to give rise to the opposite. The only way to avoid paradox was to reduce the scope of knowledge.
Myth of Modern Science
The discoveries of these fundamental issues are some of the greatest achievements of modern science. Without a fundamental change, modern science can never break through these limitations.
The optimism and faith that, with enough time and hard work, modern science will eventually discover a complete and consistent theory of the universe with current methods is a myth.
While striving for absolute completeness and consistency, modern science repeatedly reduced its scope of knowledge of the universe. Now, a general method of modern science is to discard from knowledge any phenomenon that is not within its highly limited scope of competency. Today, mainstream scientists and philosophers generally study superficial aspects of things for practical purposes.
In physics, the paragon of modern science which other branches of science try to emulate, some physicists engage in pioneering works, with the aid of philosophy, to advance physics beyond quantum mechanics. However, their theories are becoming so abstract and extreme, beyond the possibility of human experience, that the theories are infeasible to verify and increasingly controversial.
This inability to verify the theories calls into question the limitations of the methods of empirical science. Without the ability to test a theory, could it become like metaphysics of which Kant had warned?
Furthermore, the most precise mathematical statements can be interpreted in very different ways on how they relate to reality. In quantum mechanics, which is one of the most verified and reliable theories of modern science, physicists still have many different and conflicting interpretations of what it means and how it relates to reality.
Of course modern science will continue to make myriad interesting discoveries, such as planets in other solar systems that were not known before, and perhaps a new theory that combines the several forces recognized by physics will be successful. However, these are basically solving puzzles within a highly limited scope. The fundamental issues remain.
In terms of the big questions, it seems that modern science is approaching a peak of its advancement with the current methods.
Conceptual Attachment
Modern science is rooted in the Western culture where it was born. And the fundamental limitations of modern science are connected with that origin. The starting point of modern science embedded in a particular culture with its ways of thinking led to its peculiar characteristics and predisposed it to the kind of science that it has become.
In other words, modern science and its methods were not constructed purely based on advancing knowledge of the universe. Instead, cultural bias and other forces of societal development influenced and constrained its development. In its extreme form, modern science imposes limits on its theories in the language of mathematics in a closed formal system.
And it is not surprising that nature does not fit well into a box constructed from a conceptual framework that imposes strict limits on any conceivable theory within that framework. While more advanced theories may be proposed, as long as the new theories are within the same framework, the fundamental limitations remain.
The dominant form of today’s modern science is a peculiar kind of science. It is not the best possible science.
Certain aspects of modern science, such as deductive methods and formal systems, have become a conceptual attachment. While acknowledging major failures of modern science, people still cling to it saying that there is no better alternative.
History of science has demonstrated repeatedly that major progress involves struggles to break through well-established ideas. And each breakthrough from old ideas requires a willingness to let go of them.
This article was originally written for PureInsight.org and is used with permission.
Friends Read Free