Does Science monopolise our concepts of reality?

Question

Often we hear scientists saying there is no proof, then we are told that all proof must of been subjected rigorous attempts to disprove it. Is this not just an attempt to impose a model of reality that seeks to be objective when objectivity itself is merely illusory? Many Quantum Physicist have already began to recognise that there is no separation between the observer and that which is being observed.

Answer 1

That is a fair question.
Science is definitely attempting to seize control of the gateways of reality by claiming definitive answers. Yet 99.9% of all scientists were completely wrong in their beliefs! Dawkins trots out the old chestnut about the Bishop who "proved" the earth was created in 4004 B.C., but he never mentions the president of the royal society who resigned "because everything that can be discovered has been discovered". Even Einstein falsified his own results because he feared becoming a laughing stock.
To observe a thing is to change it, as you say. So the only reasonable hypothesis left is to presume that a minimum 50% of all that humankind thinks it knows is not only wrong, it will be proven so in the next 100 years.
Science is excellent at describing mechanisms, but in many ways is a collection of successful recipes - men in white coats who have their own agendas ans who should have their words treated with caution accordingly (limitless nuclear power? thalidomide? DDT? Smoking not "proven" bad for you?) Pay him enough, he will say what his paymaster wants...
So objectivity is an illusion but cynically, few even believe it, you are being sold something. Intellect believes it stands aside from universal process, yet we are made of stuff from the centres of stars.
And so I come back to where you started - they attempt to define what is allowed to be real, with no more validity than anybody else who tries and usually with less humanity.
Cheers, Steve.

Answer 2

You are setting up a false conflict between science and theology, but I'll play along with your rules anyway, just for the sake of it. I think that the one of the most important theological concepts for understanding reality is the concept of free will. It is only if we are free agents that we can understand anything at all. If we are entirely physical entities, ruled by nothing except the laws of nature, then we can have no true knowledge or understanding. We would only be able to think what the laws of nature caused us to think, and would have no way to know whether our knowledge or understanding was true. And exactly the same principle would apply if we were under the control of a supernatural power. In fact it is only our freedom to think, judge and act which makes your question a meaningful one to ask.

Answer 3

scientists are in a learning process, and discovery facts as they go develope a better understanding of life as we know it. A good amount is based on hypotesis from what they think. So they are thinkers I will give them that. But much of science has been disproven over the eons of time we have been on this planet. Of course they too have the religious superstitions to face as well. Metaphysics is a science and much of that is not proven it just takes faith. Mankind will always have to go on faith for he will not ever know everything, the universe is too large. It is unfortunate though that we convulute everything with these so-called facts, because wait 20 years and what the scientists have proven in some areas will be wrong, and then there they go again in search of where no man/woman has ever gone before. And that is the challenge for them to be the first, or to get the treasure or both. Mankind will always adventure into the unknown, personally I believe in the Supreme Being, and I leave all that other to the scientists, take it in stride, and live my life in ease. Mother nature fools those scientists everytime doesnt she?

Answer 4

You are covering three very unrelated topics in your questions.

1. Good scientists tend to use the term "verify" instead of "prove", and theory instead of proof. Proof is appropriate for a priori subjects like mathematics but not the right word for a posteriori knowledge we gather from observations, construct into testable hypotheses, and derive scientific laws and theories from.

2. It is reasonable that any model of reality be given a thorough testing before its usefulness be confirmed by the scientific community. The objectivity is in the fact that any scientific law or theory is derived from a testable hypothesis by many competitive people.

3. Quantum Physics is horribly mangled by the popular press and its use is usually misunderstood by many and is often misused by a few seeking to confuse others. The issue of the effect of the observer on the observed is at a subatomic level. And it is limited to specific issues, such as not being able to know momentum and position of a particle at the same time. Please don't try to make sweeping generalizations from popular and usually wrong ideas about Quantum Mechanics. The truth is that if we cannot verify something, we simply cannot say anything about it, and that includes not making silly statements about some metaphysical merger of the observer and the observed.

Answer 5

Realistically trying to understand the who, what, where and most importantly why with respect to reality involves two things....Guessing and Testing.
The only thing that makes science any different then other forms of trying to understand reality like religion, is that science only except guesses that can be tested, and after it guesses, it tests, and then tests, and then tests, and then tests some more.

Religion guesses whatever it wants and tests once or twice, then assumes it's right. If anyone ever runs a test that disproves religion, religion circumvents reality, and burns that person at the stake.

So to answer your question yes Science should monopoliZe our concept of reality, because it's the only thing qualified to do so.

Answer 6

Good scientist are scrupulosity careful to be objective. Much of what we study is in the language of mathematics which removes virtually all bias. As to Quantum physics and the Heisenberg principle, it needs to be understood that we observe indirectly by using the very forces that operate the system, thus we do effect the system by observing it and thereby biasing the observation. That is why all observation of quantum mechanics is subject to much skepticism and rigourous repetition.

Answer 7

Sometimes yes and sometimes no.

When we watch a movie,or read a book, for example.

On the other hand, science can or does monopolise-our-concept-of-reality when we read factual books, newspapers,
listen to the national news broadcast; or on meeting a real
scientist in the flesh,so-to-speak!

And this should not be so surprising,after all, its a tiny but real
part of our ordinary and extraordinary lives.

Answer 8

It isn't a coherent thing in itself to the extent that you could place it in the dock and charge it with monopolising anything.

Science is a process which results from the activities of numerous independent entities. Those entities are fallible, subjective, ego-driven, and wear bad cords. But the global result is a naturally self-cleansing development of robust objective interpretations of what we are aware of around us.

It works kind of like evolution itself - it needs no outside direction.

For sure, it doesn't produce absolutes (not even absolute objectivity). But since absolutes are the last refuge of the intellectual scoundrel, so what? If you need absolutes, you have to invent them yourself. Whence religion.

Answer 9

No, Television forms a substantial portion of our concept of reality-therefore science cannot have a 'monopoly'.

Also you have a rather limited concept of 'scientists'. they are not high priests delivering dictats from above.

Science is a way of seeing things and anyone is capable of taking a scientific approach to anything. Religion is another way of seeing things. Really the two are mutually exclusive and there really shouldn't be any tension between them.

the fact that there is is the result of ignorance and misunderstanding.

Answer 10

wow dude, how many different topics can you squeeze into one question, youve got 1) the authority of Science, 2) the concept of reality itself 3) a poor paraphrase of empiricality 4) the assumption objectivity IS illusory 5) and the one that takes the cake: the very theory of Perception itself!
but by the way, no, they dont monopolise our concepts of reality.