What arrogance scientism exudes! Scientism: the belief that truth can only be found through the application of science. But what is science? When we use the word ‘science’, it sounds sometimes as though we are referring to a monolithic entity speaking with a single voice of a Delphic oracle. Unfortunately, the word is used in a varied of ways. Sometimes the word is used in the context of the people who are engaged in producing it—the scientists. Sometimes it is used in the context of the methodology being used—the so-called scientific method. Sometimes in is used in the context of a specific kind of knowledge produced, a science. Often the word is used to mean the combination of all three connotations; for example, when we read that “Science has produced a wealth of knowledge”. However, it is in the third context that the word rightfully belongs; the word science should be used primarily to designate a specific kind of knowledge. But is science the only kind of knowledge that can be classified as truth? We know that science is based on inductive reasoning and absolute proof cannot be found through inductive reasoning. Furthermore, as Gödel showed, mathematical statements can be true even though they can’t be proven. So the connection between proving something and truth is questionable at best.
Karl Popper, a philosopher of science, suggested a way to classify hypotheses as science; he pointed out that the classical scientific method is based on inductive reasoning that went out of favor with the philosophers in the 20th century because one can never prove a hypothesis to be true based on repeated observation. Hypotheses can only be proven false. Consequently, Popper made falsification the criterion for classifying hypotheses as science. The theories of physics are such that a single observation that contradicts a predicted outcome is enough to invalidate the theory, and in a way, this is what we mean by testability. Popper also argues that although most science has been developed using inductive reasoning there is no single method for creating a scientific theory. Whereas the classical method puts most emphasis on prediction, Popper argues that the best theory is the one that offers the best explanation. A theory explains best when it is simple, general, and comprehensive. Since Popper prefers a theory that can be falsified, the steps in the Popperian method are: problem, hypothesis, prediction and falsification. However there is plenty of knowledge that is classified as science even though the pertinent hypothesis cannot be falsified. How, for example, could we falsify the theory of evolution? On the other hand, intelligent design, which is certainly not accepted as science, is easily falsified merely by creating life in a test tube.
In the narrow sense, a hypothesis becomes science only if it is testable. This is the definition that a materialist invokes whenever convenient. It implies that the hypothesis must make a prediction that can be verified. Prediction and verification give a hypothesis stature and earns it text book status. In spite of that, predictability and verification by experimentation or measurement are not the only way that hypotheses have been accepted as science. A hypothesis, without being either predictive or verifiable, can be accepted as science and become a theory through consensus of the scientific community on the basis that it is a plausible description verified by logical deduction of known facts. Historical disciplines such as evolution, archeology, and geology are primarily observational and most hypotheses can never be tested. Still, hypotheses that are presented in those disciplines are legitimately called science on the basis that they are the most plausible explanations of the facts. Thus, plausibility can confer scientific stature. Therefore, I contend that one does not have to prove the existence of God before a God hypothesis can be accepted as the most plausible explanation of the observed facts and, hence, be considered scientific. However if such an explanation is provided it will necessarily subsume science and will construct a plausible explanation at a deeper level at the ground of reality. It will be metascience.
Yppop
