Why SCIENCE cannot CLAIM 100% TRUTH-
Why Science cannot claim 100% Truth
The philosophy of science is a field of study that attempts to address how we can derive knowledge from scientific experiments and empirical data. In this video we will prove to you why scientific facts are not 100% and there is always the possibility of doubt.
The first problem with in the philosophy of science is induction: Induction is a thinking process where one makes conclusions by moving from the particular to the general. Arguments based on induction can range in probability from very low to very high, but always less than 100%. Here is an example of induction:
“I have observed that punching a boxing bag properly with protective gloves never causes injury. Therefore no one will be injured using a boxing bag.”
As can be seen from the example above, induction faces a key problem which is the inability to guarantee the conclusion, because a sweeping generalisation cannot be made from a limited number of observations. The best it can provide are probabilities, ranging from low to very high. In the aforementioned example the person who made the statement could not logically prove that the next person to punch a boxing bag will not get injured.
Therefore, the problem with induction is that it can’t produce certainty. This issue was raised by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume in his book, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Hume argued that inductive reasoning can never produce certainty. He concluded that moving from a limited set of observed phenomena to making conclusions for an unlimited set of observed phenomena is beyond the present testimony of the senses, and the records of our memory.
The second problem with in the philosophy of science is Empiricism: Empiricism claims that we have no source of knowledge in a subject or for the concepts we use in a subject other than sense experience. Philosopher Elliot Sober in his essay Empiricism explains the empiricist’s thesis:
“Empiricists deny that it is ever rationally obligatory to believe that theories provide true descriptions of an unobservable reality…For an empiricist, if a theory is logically consistent, observations are the only source of information about whether the theory is empirically adequate.”
Empiricism suffers from limitations and logical problems. The main problem with empiricism is that it can only base its conclusions on observed realities and cannot make conclusions on unobserved realities. Elliot Sober explains this problem:
“Empiricists need to address problems in the philosophy of perception. The most obvious first stab at saying what seeing an object involves is to describe the passage of light from the object into the eyes, with the result that a visual experience occurs. However, the invisibility of white cats in snowstorms and the fact that we see silhouettes (like the moon during an eclipse) shows that this is neither sufficient nor necessary.”
Further exploring Sober’s example, imagine you observe a white cat walking outside of a house towards the direction of an oncoming snowstorm; you can see the cat walking up to the snowstorm and then you can no longer see the cat. A strong empiricist’s account would be to deny that there is a cat in the snowstorm, or at least suspend any claims to knowledge. However, based on other intellectual tools at your disposal you would conclude that there is a white cat in the snowstorm regardless of whether or not you can observe one.
Therefore since induction and empiricism are used in deriving knowledge from scientific data, then science cannot claim certainty. Our observations do not encompass all phenomena, therefore science is tentative. In other words it can change based upon future observations. For science to be certain, all natural phenomena must have been observed. This is impossible.
Therefore the scientific method of thinking to prove things like the existence of God or the belief of Muslims that the Qur’an is the divine word of God, is problematic and incoherent.
Don't forget to subscribe to our YouTube Channel
Support our content by donating to fundmypage.com/kjvids
Website - www.kjvids.co.uk
Facebook - www.facebook.com/KJVids
Twitter - www.twitter.com/kjvids2016
Instagram - www.instagram.com/kjvidsofficial
All Rights Reserved. Contact [email protected] if you are interested in licensing our content, advertising or working with us in other ways.
Science, Thinking, God, Evidence, Proof, Way of thinking, Science Truths, Truth, Flawed, Logic, David Hume, Elliot Sober,