I would like to share this essay which contains a skeptical criticism of what is argued to be bias and hidden premises in the methodology and
prevailing worldview presented by the physical sciences. It is several parts. Questions are welcome, and criticisms are appreciated, so long as they
are scholarly and intellectually respectful.
Metascience, cosmology, and biogenesis: a philosophical examination of questions on origins.
by MF Alexander
Science is merely a lens through which to view the world around us. The picture that we perceive when looking through this lens is called a world
view. The world view that science paints for us is depicted as being superior to all other world views in that in can be verified by observation and
peer review, its language is precision and mathematics, and also because it's practical application-namely technology-is proof of concept. The
strength of Science in theory is that, ideally, it does base it's predictions, premises and conclusions on that which is observable, that which can be
observed and understood, and that which can be manipulated for verification. Furthermore the theories and axioms of science, in theory, will always be
subject to the possibility of falsifiability by counter-example.
One could approach scientific criticism by attacking any number of its specific conclusions. For example it is possible in theory to show that the
speed of light is not a constant by demonstrating it traveling at a velocity other than C. Another way that one could approach scientific criticism is
to demonstrate that the foundations and methods it rests upon are fundamentally flawed in principle.
One such example of a foundational principle that is assumed without categorization by the physical and natural sciences, is that everything is
material. If there exists any such things in the physical Universe which are not material (comprised of neither matter nor energy), observable
(whether directly or indirectly), manipulable(to be experimented upon, industrialized, or commercialized), or predictable (meaning if this
hypothetical thing does not conform with Science, it's accepted ideas, and implicit assumptions), then Science can not say, for it refuses to allow
for both that which is seen and unseen, and consequently science emphatically declares that this thing therefore does not exist.
Incidentally some of the leading and accepted theories of science-take quantum physics for example-seem to exist solely in an abstract universe of
discourse, observed and described only within a framework of the most complex mathematical notions. The veracity of these theories hinges upon
accurate predictions within a small margin of error. When dealing with things like atomic and sub-atomic particles which have unpredictable behavior
that defies everything we know about the Universe, quantum fields, strings, quantum fluctuations in a vacuum, Universal forces, dark-matter, and a
host of other theories in contemporary science, it seldom is questioned where the line is drawn between that which is “material”, and that which
is immaterial. It seems duplicitous that it is acceptable for a scientist to speak about the 11th dimension to support a string theory without raising
a brow, but to wonder aloud if the 11th dimension is eternal paradise, or ask where thoughts, principles, and physical laws can be observed, these are
laughable as the ponderings of an ignorant uneducated fool, or even worse-scorned; flying invisible spaghetti monsters don't count.
This a priori rejection by science of that which is metaphysical, while propagating notions that are indifferentiable from metaphysics in such a way
as to obfuscate this conflation, is worse than duplicity, it is intellectually dishonest.
This influential worldview science communicates ripples through class rooms of liberal public and higher education, and pervades sociological
institutions like mass media, or pop culture. This worldview is communicated as the idea that Science doesn't need God to make sense of the Universe,
life, or the Human experience; that the methodology, theories, and axioms of Science are sufficient to arrive at truth; that 'truths' arrived at by
other intellectual disciplines-especially philosophy and religion-are epistemologically inferior; that therefore God doesn't exist, nor even the
notion of that which is metaphysical, or supranatural; as the notion that it can explain everything in the Universe with the simplest, yet
inaccessible, equation; that a quantum particle, which may or may not be a figment of sciences imagination, is tantamount to God; by the promises and
future hope of paradise and salvation in knowledge and technology, as promised by press and mass media.
How is the integrity of the physical laws preserved as it pervades through the Universe? Are the physical laws material? If so where are they written?
If not does that mean they do not exist? If by some miracle the Universe did deviate from the worldview decreed by Science, and its laws, what would
it look like? What would it be called? Would it be written off as an anomalous outlier? Where do miracles or extraordinary circumstances of divine
intervention fit into the equation for science? Is it a hallmark of objectivism to sublimate any point of data that disagrees, as a matter of
Regarding the alleged laws and forces that so efficaciously govern our Universe, where did they come from, and for what reason? In a Universe with a
planet such as ours, host to intelligent life such as us, who ask questions such as these, is it folly to wonder if these laws and forces that science
describes, are merely glimpses of the fantastic genius of a Divine Architect? What if it could be demonstrated that the Universe science paints for us
looks an awfully lot like a Universe designed with life in mind, and in particular Human life, is it possible for science to acknowledge at least
this? It is the intention of this essay to attempt to do just that, to understand and communicate the world view science paints for us, and by this
picture highlight criticisms of science, to demonstrate that the Universe which science teaches about, is abounding with phenomenon that is better
understood if it existed in a Universe intelligently designed by the inconceivable genius, and efficacious power of a Creator God.
edit on 22-9-2013 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)