Science has serious limitations

Science is in hot pursuit of truth whatever it be and it (science) has discovered a suprb tool – the tool of reason – to help it in its pursuit. This tool over a few centuries has been perfected into a methodology – the scientific methodology – comprising hythotesis, experiment, theory and, ultimately culminating into (a scientific ) law. Hypothesis presupposes that Nature is never capricious in its behavor, that is, Nature always follows the same rules in similar circumstances. Experiments are conducted – and repeated – in the given ‘methamatically rigid’ parametric conditions.

However, there are countless events that happen with each passing moment. And, each one of these events happens within definite and precise parametric conditions. With the knowledge already at our disposal, is it ever possible for us to detect them in their complex and interconnected entirety? If ever we are able to detect them all, is it possible for us to ascertain the cumulative effect that these parametric conditions exert on the event in question? And more than this, assuming that we are able to detect them all, and ascertain their cumulative effect being exerted by them on the event in question, is it possible for us to control them while performing the relevant experiment? Also, assuming that we are able to comply with all these preconditions for making a scientifically correct experiment, is it possible for us to duplicate these required parametric conditions in a series of repeated experiments?

  All these requirements – preconditions – are the sine qua non of making a scientific experiment. Before explaining an event by offering a hypothesis, it is absolutely necessary to ensure the compliance of these preconditions for making a scientifically correct experiment and offer this experiment as the scientific proof of the hypothesis in question. Here assumptions have been made in favor of the claimed scientific nature of the method followed by science, but the truth is contrary to these assumptions.

  There is another aspect to this problem of ‘scientific’ nature of science. Supposing we are able to detect, ascertain cumulative effect on an event, control and duplicate in repeated experiments these parametric conditions, can the suggested explanation – the offered hypothesis – be the only one explanation possible to satisfy the logic of that event happening in those conditions? Obviously, it is not so. The history of development of science is the history of changing explanations of a single event. These are inevitable difficulties in the path of science and they limit the ‘scientific’ nature of scientific truth offered by its hypothesis, theory and law. There is no scope and justification for science to become arrogantly intolerant towards other claims of truth and usurp to itself the seat of sole arbitrator of truth.

   To make our study of an event more scientific we have to take into account several factors affecting our measurements. It is pointed out that measurement is a number that arises from the interaction of an observer and his instruments with the object observed. The number so obtained will depend on (I) the brain structure of the observer, (2) the state of relative motion of the observer and the object observed, (3) the physical and physiological receptors of the observer, (4) the interaction between the observer and the object observed, (5) the properties of the object observed, and (6) the effect of the remainder of the universe.

  In this enunciation of the factors affecting our measurements the last one, that is, the effect of the remainder of the universe is the most crucial in determining the scientific nature of our study of an event. In fact, this very factor opens the gate of the progress of science. Let us point out an illustration of these difficulties and limitations of science. As we said, there are countless events happening each moment. An apple falls down from a tree to the ground. We take for granted that here there is an apple, an entity – a fruit – that is an isolated thing unconnected with the remainder of universe and its forces operating everywhere – many of which still remain unknown to us – and that this apple has come off a branch of the tree, and has fallen to the ground. We make repeated observations and confirm that it always happens this way only.

  We explain this phenomenon by hypothesizing that there is a force of attraction in Earth (that is, gravity). Have we recounted here that the apple in question is not an isolated thing unconnected with the remainder of universe? No, we have not. We fail to account that apple is made up of atoms and, in turn, of quanta of energy-field. Also, we fail to account that these quanta of energy-field are only formations – like waves formed of water in ocean – in the Unified Field of energy that is present everywhere.. Further, we fail to appreciate the fact that it is not the Earth alone whose force acting on the apple has to be accounted for. We fail to account that Earth is revolving around Sun and there is a neutralized position present every where on Earth of the two counterbalancing forces, that is, the centripetal force (due to the gravity of Sun) and the centrifugal force (due to the Earth’s elliptical motion around Sun). And, it is not the only factor that has to be accounted for. There are nine planets that revolve around Sun and their gravitational fields overlap each other. Earth is a part of this integrated gravitational whole. The sum total of this effect on Earth has to be calculated and accounted for if we are to carry any meaningful scientific experiment. And, it is not these planets alone there. Beyond the planet Pluto, there is Kuiper Belt of asteroids. These may be smaller in diameter and mass, nevertheless they have a part to play in the complex gravitational field present everywhere within the Solar system. Earth is within the Solar system and we do not calculate and account their minute impact that they exert on our falling apple.

  And, to make the matter more complex, our Sun is revolving around our galaxy – Milky Way – and this galaxy is revolving around our Black Hole. Certainly, the cumulative effect of Sun, Milky Way and our Black Hole has to be calculated precisely and accounted for while explaining the fall of the apple in question on Earth. The problem does not end here. Today, we know that ninety percent of the calculated mass that must exist in universe is not visible and accounted for. It is referred to as the Dark Matter. It must exist somewhere and be impacting on Earth also (effecting the apple in question). To perform a really scientific experiment on the falling apple, we must be able to determine this complex effect precisely and account that completely. Obviously, the claim of science of being scientific is not so scientific.

  And, it is not the end of problems for science. Inadequacy of science and its scientific method is further exposed with every major advance of our knowledge. Assuming (in our case of apple falling to the ground) we have calculated the cumulative effect of the exerting forces on this apple and accounted the same precisely in our hypothesis, is there only one explanation for this event of falling apple on the ground? No, it is not so. The simple explanation by hypothesizing an attracting force present in Earth – that was revolutionary when it was proposed by Newton – has been substituted today by the explanation hypothesized by Einstein. It explains that in the presence of Earth’s mass the space around it becomes curved and the apple in our case does not fall to the ground but follows this curved path by moving through the shortest route – the geodesic path – that looks like apple being attracted by Earth. Is this the final explanation? The history of science tells us it should not be so.

  There are many kinds of events. For example, a child claims he remembers his past birth (please refer to the case of Naresh Kumar in these pages). Do we know all the conditions wherein this event takes place? Are we able to artificially control those conditions? Is it possible to duplicate those conditions at will? No. A man foretells that a particular event would happen at the stated time and place and the foretold event happens in that manner. Are we able to manipulate the concerned conditions ‘scientifically’? No. It is truth but how would you prove it scientifically? With whom the fault lies: science or truth? A man comes into ‘contact’ with a person who is now dead and obtains from this dead person a piece of verifiable information. This information is verified to be true. It is truth. But how would science prove this truth scientifically? With whom the fault lies: truth or scientific method? Science would rule out the happening of such an event. It is a mean excuse. It is sheer hypocrisy on the part of science. It does no credit to scientific method of science.  The truth is that human being –along with mind, his supreme tool – is not the final product of Nature. Nature is still at her work of refining this unfinished product. Humans must learn to be patient and humble in delivering their verdicts about things.

%d bloggers like this: