Skip to main content

Is Science The Only Avenue To Truth?

Q: Can we really know anything apart from science? After all, philosophy and theology seem so speculative. Why should they be considered valid ways to know truth?

A: What you have described is itself a philosophical position called scientism or verificationism. This position holds that anything not accessible to the five senses (taste, touch, hearing, sight, and smell) cannot be known to be true. It was a position that was held by many in the past, but has been abandoned by many. It is still held to by some lay individuals.

As I stated above, this is itself a philosophical position. Therefore, if philosophy is not a valid way of knowing truth, how can you know that scientism is true? This view is thus self-defeating. Can you prove via the scientific method that nothing but what is provable via the scientific method can be known to be true? Of course not! At least, not without arguing in a circle. Yet this is not the only issue with the claim that the scientific method is the only way to know something to be true.

A second issue with verificationism is that there are several things that we are rational to believe that cannot be accessed by the scientific method. I have written about some of these here. Because I have touched on this elsewhere, I will be brief here. The scientific method cannot, for example, explain epistemological truths, or truths about how we understand truth. In fact, what you are assuming is related to epistemology more than it is to the scientific method! When you make a claim about how truth is known, you are making an epistemological claim, not a scientific claim. Again, if all philosophy is to be discarded, then you must discard your epistemological claim, as well. This truly is a double-edged sword!

Before I close this post, I would like to clear up what may be a misconception about philosophy. Philosophy does not just touch on areas that cannot be observed. Philosophy is both a first-order discipline and a second-order discipline. As a first-order discipline, philosophy deals with its own subject matter, such as epistemology and metaphysics. As a second-order discipline, philosophy touches on every other discipline. There is, for example, such a thing as the philosophy of science. When you study the philosophy of science, you are not studying science itself, but the philosophical background to the way science is done. The scientific method itself is an outgrowth of the philosophy of science. In that regard, science itself is dependent on philosophy!

In conclusion, yes, philosophy is a way in which truth can be known. No, science is not the only way to know truth. Not only is this view self-refuting, but it would require us to discard quite a bit of what we can rationally know to be true. I am not willing to give up rational beliefs because of an apriori assumption, and neither should you.


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…

Profile Of A Modern Pharisee

The Pharisees were one of the major Jewish sects in the days of Christ. Throughout His earthly ministry, Jesus consistently clashed wit h this religious group on multiple issues. Even though the Pharisees do not exist in the way they did in the 1st century, many religious leaders and laypeople today still fit the profile of a Pharisee. Here are some traits of the Pharisees, both ancient and modern:

1. The Pharisees cared more about their traditions than they did about obedience to God.
The Pharisees believed in the Law of Moses, and observed it strictly. They were so careful to observe the Law of Moses, in fact, that they observed additional guidelines that were meant to help them avoid violating the Law. The Pharisees ultimately observed these guidelines to the neglect of the finer parts of the Law, such as justice, mercy, and love. Jesus clashed with them and called them out on this point (see Matthew 23:23-24). Today, we call this practice "legalism". Legalism is a hallma…