Science: In pursuit of the reality!

The business of science is to study all forms of ‘reality’. The reality may be defined as ‘one that exists’ and ‘of which existence is verifiable by proof’. The ‘reality’ that ‘exists’ has nothing to do with the ‘proof’ showing that it really exists. Proof of reality is no more than making available symmetry of the claimed reality to mind that it understands and insists for. Hypothesis is mind’s reconstruction of the interrelations of Nature’s reality. Scientific mind takes for granted this Nature’s reality as an ordered whole wherein the components of the whole also are ordered. These ordered components are further assumed to be integrated with the whole in an ordered manner. This assumption is the very first condition to search scientifically the existing reality. It is often expressed by vouchsafing that Nature is not capricious in its working.

  Hypothesis, if endures with time, matures into scientific theory and theory, if persists with this endurance with time, further matures into scientific law. Scientific law, and therefore scientific theory and hypothesis as well, contain three basic elements. Firstly, there is a set of parametric conditions present wherein the experiment concerned takes place; secondly, there is an event happening in those conditions; and thirdly, there is a principle present and operating in Nature that is hypothesized to explain the logic of the happening of that event in those conditions. Before a hypothesis, and much more than that a theory and law originating there from, is accepted as the scientific, certain preconditions are absolutely necessary to be complied with by the claimant hypothesis. Firstly, the set of parametric conditions in which the event in question happens must be defined with mathematical accuracy; also these conditions must be in a position to be created artificially, controlled experimentally and repeated any number of times at will by anybody possessing required skill. Secondly, the event in question that happens in those conditions must always happen without a single exception. It is referred to as the experimental proof of the hypothesis. And, thirdly, there must be only one explanation available – that is, the hypothesis in question – which explains the happening of that event in those conditions. A hypothesis that meets these preconditions is categorized as scientific one. And, if this hypothesis endures with the challenge of new observations and discoveries in the course of time, is elevated to the new status of scientific theory. If this process of verification by time continues with success, it is further elevated to the status of scientific law.

  This is the sum and substance of the claim made by science of an explanation – a principle – of being scientific and of superior quality. How much ‘scientific’ is this process of discovering principles operating in Nature? How much efficacious is this method of verification of ‘reality’ that exists and operates in Nature? Is this method foolproof against the possibility of committing error – error arising out of its own inherent and inbuilt defects in this process?  Is this method ‘scientific’ enough to claim the status of an infallible judge to denounce or approve the ‘truth’ of a claim arrived at by a method other than its own?

  This method is superb in its depth of approach to the problem of uncovering secret ‘reality’ existing in Nature. It is marvelous in its yield of results. It contains an inbuilt mechanism of ‘self-correction’ whereby with each passing day new parametric conditions are confronted to and called upon to explain by the ‘established scientific theory’ in an endless manner. This self-correction process safeguards science against sprouting of any vested interest ‘fundamentalism’ that plagues almost all of the rest of branches of human knowledge. Our glittering civilization is founded on the light of knowledge revealed by this sole method – the principle of mind and mind’s reason, and logic. Still, this method is inherently weak to proceed further beyond a certain limit in unveiling ‘reality’ existing and operating in Nature. This weakness is inbuilt in its own process. This weakness is being exposed now with the rapid march of science, and particularly after the discovery of the universal principle of Relativity operating in Nature. Let us see what these inbuilt deficiencies of method are and how they weaken its claims like being ‘scientific’, ‘sole arbitrator of truth’ etc.

%d bloggers like this: