Skip to main content

12 Types of Truth the Scientific Method Cannot Prove

Today, I was listening to an individual speak. Much of his speech was uncontroversial. However, he made a couple of claims that are demonstrably false. One of these claims was that science can explain everything by the scientific method. I found this interesting, since the scientific method deals specifically with phenomena and theories that can be observed and tested. I was reminded immediately of the debate between William Lane Craig and Peter Atkins, in which Atkins made this very point, only to be refuted by William Lane Craig. Dr. Craig listed 5 types of truth that science cannot explain:

1. Logical and Mathematical Truths
As Dr. Craig points out, science presupposes the existence of logical and mathematical truths so that to try to use science to explain them would be to argue in a circle. Anything that science presupposes cannot itself be explained by the scientific method, or else you will be guilty of this logical fallacy.

2. Metaphysical Truths
The example that Dr. Craig gave was the truth that the earth was not created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. Again, the scientific method makes metaphysical assumptions and therefore cannot be used to prove or disprove these assumptions.

3. Ethical Truths
The scientific method cannot be used to account for ethical truths. In fact, this is a dangerous place to go with the scientific method, since allowing science to make our ethical judgments leads to all sorts of horrendous, immoral acts. Dr. Craig rightly points out that the scientific method cannot prove whether the Nazi regime was wrong or right in committing its atrocities.

4. Aesthetic Judgments
The scientific method cannot tell me whether a painting is beautiful or ugly. It cannot tell me whether the night sky is a thing of beauty or a thing of horror.

5. Science Itself
Dr. Craig points out that science itself is full of assumptions that cannot be proven. Again, any assumption made by science cannot be proven by science without arguing in a circle.

After hearing this speech today and being reminded of this debate, I would like to add on to Dr. Craig's list. Here are some more truths that cannot be proven by the scientific method.

6. Historical Truths
Historical truths cannot be proven by the scientific method. The scientific method requires the observance of phenomena. None of us can go back and observe Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, for example. None of us can experiment with him by placing him in the White House, and then removing him to see what happens, and then replacing him again. Thus, historical truths lie outside the realm of science.

7. Archaeological Truths
Science cannot verify that the archaeological finds made today are actually from, say, a trade route between two major cities in the Middle East. This is merely an interpretation based on assumptions made about a particular find. Archaeological truths cannot be tested by experimentation, and these experiences cannot be repeated. Thus, while some may consider archaeology a science (and many do not), archaeological truths are not derived from the scientific method.

8. Epistemological Truths
Epistemological truths are truths about how we know the truth. Can science prove how we know the truth? Not if it assumes that it can know the truth by the scientific method. In other words, epistemological truths cannot be proven by the scientific method, since epistemological truths are assumed by the scientific method.

9. Legal Truths
Legal truths cannot be proven by the scientific method. Science cannot tell me whether one law or the other would be the better law to pass. Science also cannot tell me whether it is better for a person to be sentenced to life in prison or to the death penalty. These are judgments made based on other assumptions.

10. Moral Truths
While this may appear to be the same thing as ethical truths, there is a distinction between moral and ethical. Ethics has to do with societal standards of right and wrong. Morals, on the other hand, has to do with belief in whether something is good or evil. This may be illustrated by pointing out that someone who follows every ethical standard of his or her practice may not demonstrate any morals at all. Moral truths are inaccessible by the scientific method, and therefore cannot be proven by them.

11. Anthropological Truths
Anthropology has to do with the development of human beings throughout history. These cannot be directly observed, and therefore rely on assumptions made by branches outside of science. That is, when you discover that bone, was this indicative of how everyone looked at this time, or did this individual have a deformation? We cannot go back and observe this. Thus, assumptions beyond the scope of the scientific method must be made to address this issue.

12. Absolute Certainty
The scientific method cannot establish absolute truth. The scientific method is, by definition, an inductive method. An inductive method, by definition, cannot establish absolute certainty for anything that it touches. Only deductions and mathematical proofs can establish such certainty.

The scientific method is a useful tool for discovering truth. However, we need to realize that it, like every discipline, has its limits. We need to recognize these limits and not overstate the effectiveness of any one branch of study.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

5 Things That Are Best Explained By Theism

When discussing my faith with non-believers, I find that the average person is oblivious to the explanatory scope of theism. That is, God's existence explains several things that would be difficult to explain in any other way. In this post, I am not presenting any formal arguments, but am just pointing out what these things are. Arguments will be addressed in subsequent posts.

1. The Origin of the Universe

Neither atheism, nor alternative views of God can adequately explain the origin of the universe. Modern science has lead us to the conclusion that the space-time universe that we inhabit had a definite beginning some 14 billion years ago (give or take a little). The problem for the atheist comes when we realize that any contingent thing has an explanation for its existence that is not found within itself, and that if something had a beginning or could have failed to exist (which describes the universe), it is by its very nature contingent. Neither do other views of God adequatel…

7 Problems With "Lack-Theism" Atheism

In recent years, atheists have increasingly attempted to redefine the words "atheism" and "atheist". Now, rather than being the negative position on the question of God's existence, many atheists have redefined atheism to be a mere "lack of belief" in God. They do not seem to care that there was already a term for this position ("non-theism"). This is often done in an attempt to avoid the burden of proof that comes from taking the negative position on God's existence. Yet, in attempting to eliminate this burden of proof, the one who redefines atheism in this manner has jumped from the frying pan into the fire. Here are 7 reasons why this definition of atheism is problematic for those who use this definition:

1. It Is Rooted In The Etymological Fallacy

In order to justify this redefinition, many atheists will appeal to the etymology of the word "atheist." The term "atheist" comes from two Greek roots, "a-" me…

Why Does God Condemn Homosexuality?

Q: Why would God create someone as a homosexual and then condemn them to hell for all eternity for it?

A: This is a question that I have heard more than one person ask. I suspect that there are more who want to ask this question, but have not had the courage to ask me. I think it is important that we clarify a few points before we go any further. Let me begin this post by making a distinction between a person's sexual orientation and their actions. A person's sexual orientation is the individual's preference. A person can engage in actions contrary to their preference. Thus, we must draw a distinction between the two.

It is also vital that we understand what the Bible actually condemns. The reason that I drew the distinction above is so that I can make this point: the Bible does not condemn a person's orientation. My challenge to anyone on either side of this debate is to find a passage of Scripture that clearly condemns a person's orientation. Such a passage does n…