Archive for February, 2010

Science as the guardian of truth

Has the scientific community set itself up as the arbiter and guardian of truth? I believe it has.  In “science” there is a pretension not only to know, but to also be able to classify what is unknown. The assumption is that because science does not know something, know one else can it know either. The fact is, just because scientists don’t know something, that cannot be counted as proof that nobody knows it.

There are people who know things that science cannot know, because the information falls outside the realm of scientific experimentation and measurements. It is knowledge that is perceived rather than proven.  A conflict arises between invisible truths and science, when the “scientific” community determines that because a thing cannot be demonstrated, it cannot be known. It is then, that by the designation of things being an unknown, they think to have a monopoly on knowledge. Thus, they categorize all things ‘known’ or ‘unknown’, and thus they imagine they are the ones who ‘know’ all things that are known.

“Science” cannot know what I am thinking, but I do, and only I do. Nor by “science” can I prove all my thoughts or the many experiences only I experienced. Even if I reveal secrets only I know to be true, it doesn’t prove them, it merely proves what I am saying they are. Indeed. The private secrets I hold are mine. Does it mean they did not exist because only I know them and science cannot prove them?

It is absurd to say because something cannot be proven by science it therefore does not exist or it is an unknown. It is presumptuous to assume that because something is not known by almost all, that it is unknown by all. It is presumptuous to say that because a majority of people who profess a faith are deceived, all who profess a faith are deceived.

By “science”, one may assume there is no God.  On the other hand, by science one can assume there is. Moreover, by a personal experience one may be deceived, then again, one may come to know something intangable—and that which is known by one, may be something beyond the knowledge of all others.

By believing that things unknown to science are unknown to all, there is a temptation to imagine knowing everything knowable, This in turn is followed by the temptation to establish “the truth”,  which in turn, becomes something that is expected to be accepted by all and questioned by none.

The “scientific community” can only imagine to know all it does and does not know, but it cannot truly know what anyone else knows, personal experiences, invisible knowledge, and God are not subject to science. And, “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”


Read Full Post »