THE SCHIZOPHRENIC DIALECTIC OF MODERN SCIENCE

Mainstream science proudly – and often pompously – distinguishes itself from other "non-scientific" means of pursuing truth and acquiring knowledge by proclaiming its strict adherence to the "scientific method," a process by which scientists attempt to develop an accurate description of the phenomena constituting our reality. The scientific method is somewhat flexible, depending upon the nature and circumstances of the phenomena being studied, but is fundamentally grounded in four steps:

· Formulate an hypothesis to explain the phenomenon being studied.

· Use the hypothesis to attempt to predict related phenomena.

· Conduct rigorously designed experiments to test the hypothesis and its predictions.

· Demonstrate confirmation of the experimental results via independent reproduction of the experiments.

The hallmarks of the scientific method are rigor, objectivity, empiricism, and replicability. In other words, the scientific method demands:

· Strict adherence to standard rules and procedures (rigor);

· An open-minded approach devoid of predetermined expectations or personal preferences (objectivity);

· Conclusions that derive from quantifiable data-based observation, measurement, and experimentation (empiricism);

· Repeated execution of similarly designed experiments that must yield consistent results and conclusions (replicability).

The point of this highly structured and formalized system is to prevent outlandish claims, baseless beliefs, and intentional chicanery from being peddled as truth or fact. And to that extent the scientific method is an impressive and laudatory system for filtering out nonsense as well as honest mistakes. There are, however, some problems with the scientific method:

1. The aspects of reality that are amenable to measurement and observation do not constitute the totality of reality, and there is good reason to suspect that they may in fact constitute only a small portion of reality. Thus the scientific method precludes the consideration, study, and acceptance of important aspects of our reality, and possibly of the bulk of reality. Several examples of such empirical-resistant phenomena are discussed in detail in my book The Afterlife and the True Nature of Reality.

2. The conditions under which experiments are conducted are often severely controlled and limited so as to allow the experimenter to focus on the particular phenomenon under study. This approach, while convenient for the scientist conducting the experiment, disregards the holistic and interrelated nature of reality and therefore discounts and disregards the effects of countless environmental factors that might play an important role in, or might profoundly affect, the phenomenon in question. Even more distressing than the pristine, unrealistic conditions under which many experiments are conducted is the existence of disturbing evidence suggesting that robust scientific results often cannot be replicated; this phenomenon has come to be known as the "decline effect."

3. Science often plays rather fast and loose with its own revered scientific method, especially when adherence to the strict requirements of that method would cast doubt on the validity of cherished hypotheses which science is determined to validate (empirical or contradictory evidence be damned). It is regarding this last point that I wish to concentrate the remainder of this article.

In allowing itself to bend, or completely ignore, the dictates of the scientific method, science has come up with some outlandishly bizarre theories that, incredibly, often defy rational thinking, violate fundamental scientific principles, and even contradict other accepted theories. For example, science has determined that:

· The entire universe was born out of nothing [The Big Bang theory].

· Introducing errors (mutations) into a finely tuned system (DNA) leads to improvements and rich diversity [Darwin's theory of evolution].

· Solid matter is mostly empty space [atomic theory] while the "vacuum" of "empty space" is awash with dark matter, dark energy, and electromagnetic energy (light, radio waves, gamma rays, X-ray, IR, UV, etc.) [modern cosmology].

· The incredible complexity of organic systems is explained by a theory that is dependent upon improbability [Darwin's theory of evolution].

· Chaotic systems possess an underlying order [Chaos theory] while stable matter is grounded in uncertainty [quantum physics].

· Gravity is an unknown, invisible force of attraction between things having mass. Gravity is either due to the curvature of space-time [Einstein's General Theory of Relativity] or it is due to an exchange of virtual particles called "gravitons" [quantum field theory]; despite the fact that the formula for Coulomb's Law describing the electrical force between two charged objects looks exactly like the formula for Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, science considers gravity and the electrical force to be different forces.

· There is no "intelligent design" behind nature; yet science itself, by its very methods and conduct, presumes rational design in nature. Science's ability to understand nature depends upon – and presupposes – nature possessing structures and processes that are organized, purposeful, and describable via mathematics ... i.e., discernible via intelligence. The very act of doing science requires and expects nature to be rationally designed; if nature were not intelligently designed, then scientists would not be able to make sense of it.

These "scientific" ideas would sound like laughable double-talk if not for the fact that they are presented as fact by mainstream science. And let me be perfectly clear: I am not saying that the theories mentioned above are necessarily untrue. My complaint here is that sciences allows itself to disregard the scientific method and come up with bizarre, common sense-defying notions for its own convenience, yet science is quick to label as "pseudo-science" other theories if they do not adhere to the scientific method. My point is that science cannot have it both ways – either everyone has to strictly adhere to the scientific method (science itself included) or else we have to entertain the possibility that there are aspects to our reality that lie outside testability by the scientific method, and that therefore science must allow for theories that are not amenable to the scientific method. Personally, I vote for the latter approach.

Terence McKenna famously noted, "Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle, and we’ll explain the rest.'" A perfect example of science's desperately needed "one free miracle" is the Big Bang theory – the notion that everything was created out of nothing, in an instant, for no reason. But think about it: If science requires the miraculous, then science isn't science. No matter how arrogantly science beats its chest and congratulates itself on its adherence to strict standards of empirical and measurable evidence, sober principles of reasoning, and dispassionate objectivity, the fact is that science still seems to need that one free miracle to kick things off. It is high time for science to broaden its perspective, open its mind, and allow for the likelihood that, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." [William Shakespeare's Hamlet, Hamlet to Horatio].

For a deeper discussion of topics that demonstrate that scientific materialism and scientific reductionism are inadequate and unsatisfactory as methods for studying a reality that is clearly holistic and interconnected, please read my book The Afterlife and the True Nature of Reality, available at Amazon in both paperback and Kindle formats.