Written January 8, 1995

A vast majority of people operate under the paradigm that "scientific knowledge is truth." It is important to realize that this paradigm is not true. There are no catholic truths in science. Scientific theories are merely attempts to explain the natural world, and what is "true" in one theory is not necessarily "true" in another. Reality (which will here on be substituted for "the natural world") is the truth and science is the knowledge.

Scientists are containers, their objective in life being the accumulation of knowledge. They try to formulate theories based on observations and other theories and assume them to be true. However, Peirce points out that scientists also use an unreliable source of knowledge, the consensus gentium, to formualte theories, "truth is that opinion to which the community ultimately settles down... sufficient investigation would cause one opinion to be universally received and all others to be rejected." In fact, a lot of scientific theories could be considered consensus gentium.

Aristotle, in his book Physics, classified matter into four elements, Air, Earth, Fire and Water. By assigning a terrestrial region to each element, he was able to explain motion. Fire had the highest place, followed by Air, then Water, and finally, Earth had the lowest position. All these elements had a tendency to stay in their natural position. For example, Fire, if placed below Air, would rise above Air. This theory explained the boiling of water. Water, when boiled, would be joined by Fire, whose natural tendency to rise would cause the water to rise as steam. The motion of all bodies, including celestial ones, could be explained by the particular mixture of these four elements. The amazing thing about Aristotle's theory is that it really seems to work. In fact, people believed in and followed Aristotelian Physics for almost two thousand years. Though his theories worked and predicted things correctly, we now believe that they worked because of the "wrong reasons." So how do we know that modern scientific theories don't only "seem to work" as well and the reasoning behind them is not invalid?

In Physics alone, there are myriad theories about everything. Newton's laws are used to explain gravitational forces and motion of the planets. Einstein's general and special theories of relativity are used to explain light, dilations in time, electrical forces, and curvature of light. Quantum Physics helps us understand the motion of sub-atomic particles, paths of electrons and the role probability plays in the sciences. Newtonian Physics assumes that mass, time and length are constant and that the speed of light changes. Einstein's theories assume that the speed of light is a constant and that mass, time and length change to account for it. Quantum Physics is based on and limited by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Newtonian Physics is also limited by this concept, which states that the velocity and displacement of a particle cannot be measured accurately at the simultaneously. An accurate measurement can only be made of either the velocity OR the displacement. However, the uncertainty principle has no effect on Einstein's general theory of relativity. This is paradoxical, because of the uncertainty principle is true, then it should always be true, and it should apply to all theories.

Scientists assume that if a theory makes predictions successfully and doesn't contradict other popular theories, then it must be true. However, they manipulate the premises for their conclusions to suit their needs. An electron can be considered a particle or a wave. The fact is that we've never even seen an electron. The universe can be both finite and limitless. But how can the universe be finite and boundryless at the same time? This suggests incongruencies among theories in Physics. Just the fact that there is no unified theory which explains everything is enough proof that science is not a good depiction of reality, but merely a tool to make predictions.

When a British electrical engineer first experimented with gyroscopes, he realized that the properties of the gyroscopes did notcomply with laws of Physics and did not match up with the predictions. In the beginning, he was considered a heretic and ostracized from the English Science Society. The physicists were unwilling to change the law of conservation of angular momentum to account for his findings and did not even listen to him. Later on, however, when it was discovered that he had made errors in his calculations, he was once again accepted. This demonstrates the unwillingness of scientists to accept paradigm shifts. Theories remain the way they are, unless something radical happens. New and maybe "better" theories might be rejected because of their reluctance to accept new ideas.

Rene Descartes said that we can never know anything for sure, and this applies to the sciences. We can never know the truth and we can never know reality. Scientists can make hypotheses and theories, formulate laws, or declare something to be "true" or "factual". They can test their theories by predicting events and comparing their predictions to reality. But the ultimate truth can not be and never will be known. What scientists know comes about from their observations and ideologies. Reuben Abel, in Man is a Measure states that to know a proposition p, p has to be true. If the truth of a proposition is a condition for its knowledge, then scientists might not even know theoir own theories. Theories can be compared to reality, but unless you are "God", you will not know the truth about how the natural world works.