Science, it cannot be
denied, has been very successful in meeting human needs, increasing their
powers and purposes by making possible a great number of things which were not
possible before, and in transforming life and the planet itself. Though much of
this has been beneficial to man, much also has been harmful and even
threatening to man’s existence and the planet itself. Research has shown that
there are also certain limits to human knowledge. These are:-
1. The
lowest limit to knowledge is set by the quantum of light. We cannot see
anything that is smaller than this.
2. The
upper limit is set by the speed of light. We cannot see anything that is faster
than light. This also sets a limit to the size of the Universe that we can see.
The speed of the stars increases the further we look. When this speed exceeds
that of light then it will not reach us.
3.
Scientific knowledge is connected with space and time. But these vanish in the
Black Holes. We cannot, therefore, know that which is within the Black Holes.
4. There is
a limit to the amount of complexity that we can deal with. Whereas it is
relatively easy to deal with linear relationships where a few factors vary
proportionally to others, it is not possible to make calculations when the
number of factors is great and they interact through feed back. We can study
things only by simplifying.
5. Science
depends on the progressive accumulation of data, refinement of techniques and
instruments. At no time can it be said that we have all the facts, or that
anyone person has all the facts available and can organise them into a
consistent system.
6. There
are at least three mysteries Science is unable to explain:-
(a) The origin of the
Universe because the Laws of Physics break down in the Big Bang.
(b) The origin of life
because all life depends on the previous existence of life.
(c) The origin and
nature of spirit or consciousness because knowledge requires the previous
existence of consciousness. Natural selection cannot explain its arising.
All three
are unique events and they are outside science because
(a) They are not reproducible by man
(b) Theories about how they occurred are
not falsifiable.
(c) They do not fit into the scientific
conceptual system.
7. But
these are the fundamental facts about existence. It may, therefore be said that
Science itself requires the previous existence of some other more fundamental
system of thinking, and a faculty for perception beyond the electromagnetic.
Science
does in fact need the previous existence of the scientist and is limited by his
mental capacities. He is dependant on the existence of human beings in general
who have a total capacity which is greater than that which is contained in a single scientists. Human beings, in their turn, require
the previous existence of Reality as a whole that is more than human.
Since
evolution is a fact of nature, we must presume that there are much greater
potentialities in Reality than have been actualised so far. There may be beings
elsewhere or human beings in the future with much greater consciousness than
present day man. The systems of thought they produce will transcend science.
The existence of these potentialities, moreover, gives us the notion of Allah,
in whom they exist.
It was
supposed that human reason alone could explain all the phenomena of the world.
But research shows that the fundamental particles of which things are
constructed do not, in fact obey the rules of logic. These arose from our need
to adjust to the middle world between the macrocosmic and microcosmic. Like
other things in the universe, the brain is also limited by its own rules and
limitations. The universe is, therefore, based on rules that transcend human
reason. This, of course, was also the position of all religions that recognised
the existence of a mind greater than man’s. But they assert that it is possible
for human beings to transcend the limits of their reason by developing empathy
with the Field of Potentialities from which the Universe arose,
that is with the mind of Allah.
8. There is
more to the Real world is than that described by science. Thus:-
(a) Human beings have
to adjust themselves to the real world, if they are to survive and prosper, not
to science. The scientists, however, insist that we ought to believe only that
for which there is scientific evidence and act accordingly. This idea must be
rejected.
(b) Science is only
one of many human activities and engages only some of their faculties. Human
beings ought to exercise these other faculties also.
(c) It is not possible
for science to control all aspects of the world or life. Factors coming from
outside the area of knowledge can always enter into the system known and
produce unpredictable results. We have to live with and adjust to the
unpredictable.
9. There is
a difference between the object, the experience of it and the description. The fact that some aspects of the world can be described in
terms of formulae which relate various concepts does not, in fact correspond to
our experiences of the world and does not tell us what gives Life or reality to
the formulae.
Science can
and has been criticised from several points of view:-
(i) The assumptions on which it is based
(ii) The motives
(iii) The
concepts used
(iv) The methods
and procedures
(v) The way it is
organised and controlled
(vi) The selection of subjects and the direction of research
(vii) The way it
is applied.
Some of the
criticisms are as follows:-
1. Science
is wholly based on the Principle of Objectivity. This states that all things in
Nature are dead. They are material, possessing inertia. Therefore all changes
must be attributed to external causes, not to purpose. This is an assumption
that has not been proved and cannot be proved. And indeed, if all things have
causes, so does a scientific theory, and whether or
not it is true is irrelevant. In fact the Principle of Objectivity is a value,
an ethical judgement. It implies not that it is a fact, but that this is how
science should proceed. But there is no justification for this either. What
possibly can it be based on? Not
that it is not useful, but that it cannot be universal and exclusive.
The
scientific principle of objectivity has three features:-
(a) That an
external cause must be found for a change.
(b) That there is
a distinction between mind and matter, and
(c) That no value
judgements should be made.
All three
can be dismissed. There are no facts that require no interpretation, and the
selection and organisation of these facts and the direction of an argument all
require motives which are subject to value judgements. If two objects, A and B
interact, then each may be regarded as the observer with respect to the other.
From the point of view of each, internality refers to itself and the other is
external to it. The result of the interaction, C, depends on both. Thus the
result will differ if either the external factor or the internal factor differ. A, acting on B1 will produce different
results from those produced if it acted on B2. Identical results are obtained
only because B1 and B2 are identical and this may be an illusion. It depends on
our powers to discriminate to see underlying similarity. Two people do not
necessarily see the same thing though they use the same word to describe the
experience. There is no absolute distinction or borderlines between life and
matter or between life and energy, order and energy, purpose and cause, or mind
and life. There are only degrees. Cognition, purpose, intelligence can be found
in all things. The purpose of all things can be seen as the need to adapt to
their environment by trying to find a point of equilibrium; order arises in all
systems; attraction, repulsion, cohesion and diffusion is found universally.
2. A characteristic
of Science that arises from the above principle is that every structure,
organism, behaviour, process, characteristic or event is explicable in terms of
natural law. The reverse cannot be done. Given these laws it is impossible to
predict the arising of any particular structure, organism, behaviour, process,
characteristic or event. The arising of life, for instance, is not predictable
from the laws of physics and chemistry, nor the
arising of conscious man from the laws of biology. Nor is it possible by study
of the parts to deduce the structure of the whole. Given the Laws of
Aerodynamics, it is impossible for a Bumble bee to fly. Given the Laws of
Newton observation showed that the motion of the planets departed from the
predictions. This enabled the discovery of hitherto unknown planets and their
satellites. It is, therefore, a tool by which new discoveries can be made. But
no theory or calculations based on it can be taken as the truth. However, given
an end result, it is possible to construct a suitable system from the known
laws to explain this. This need not be the true explanation. Science,
therefore, appears to be doing only half its task.
3. The
Principle is not only based on but also causes a distinction to occur between matter and mind (a term used for consciousness). The object
to be known must always be matter and cannot be mind, and the observer must be
a mind and cannot be matter. The result of this distinction is that, in order
to restore unity, the one is reduced to the other. Some people regard matter as
primary or even the only reality, and others take it to be mind. One of the
results is that either the Object or the Idea are taken as primary. Life and
energy straddles the two spheres and the attitude towards it also becomes ambiguous.
Energy could be seen as more fundamental than matter even in physics, and it is
so taken in some Eastern systems. Life and mind are also phenomena. In fact we
only have experiences of inertia, behaviour and awareness. We are ourselves the
first, and perhaps, the only object we have direct experience of, and
everything else indirectly. Therefore, we know these other things by analogy.
4. A
consequence of the Principle of Objectivity is that the notion of ‘purpose’
must be avoided. This can be done by ignoring the direction of Time and making
all phenomena time-symmetrical. That is, the laws will remain applicable even
if the process is reversed. This is not how nature works. It is easier to
destroy something than to construct something. Things that are destroyed do not
reconstruct themselves. Particles such as the long-lived Kaon, though usually
they decay into a negative pion, a positron and a neutrino, sometimes decay
into a positive pion, an electron and an anti-neutrino where the symmetry is
violated.
5. Despite
the Principle of Objectivity which needs causes for all phenomena, whenever
science in its present state finds the cause unknowable it attributes it to
Chance. But this by definition cannot be a cause. The religious attitude is
much more logical in that both the unknown and the known are caused by Allah.
6. Another
consequence is the need to analyse and isolate, thereby destroying the
wholeness. But things in nature occur in systems having a wholeness. They have
a pattern which is more than the sum of the parts. If a system consists of
elements A, B, C, D etc.., then if we isolate them from the system they are no
longer the same thing. This is because a thing is known by its characteristics
and functions which depend on its relationships. If some force is introduced
into this system, this will cause it to be rearranged. It cannot be said that
some factor X is the cause of a particular effect since all the elements and
their relationships are involved. Analysis causes a loss of truth. But it is
good for technology. This is because we recombine these elements to produce
something new and test them until the desired result is produced.
7. There
has always been a controversy between those who regard the unchanging and
invariant as the only truth and those who see the truth as being constant
change and flux. Science opts for the first view. The First Law of motion, that
the state of motion of an object cannot change until an external force acts on
it, is an assumption. This follows from the Principle of Objectivity. We then
have to explain why changes take place, and the notion of force is invented. We
could have assumed that change is the norm, and then explain why things are
stable. Or we could take the relativist view that change and constancy are
relative. In fact they are relative terms such that one cannot know the one
without the other. Persisting objects change and changing events have regular
patterns. When we measure the motion of a thing we do so with respect to what
is regarded as stationary. In order to see change we also need to have a stable
consciousness.
8. Science
is interested more in the logical consistency of scientific thinking than in
the consistency of experience and adaptation to the world. For instance, the
notion of negative time was added by Stephen Hawking to make the Universe
self-existent so that no God was required and the Universe would have no
beginning or end. He justified this on the grounds that:-
“If you
take a positivist position as I do, questions about reality do not have any
meaning. All one can ask is whether imaginary time is useful in formulating
mathematical models that describe what we observe. This it certainly is. Indeed
one could take the extreme position and say that imaginary time was really the
fundamental concept in which the mathematical model should be formulated.
Ordinary time would be a derived concept that we invent as part of a
mathematical model to describe our subjective impressions of the Universe”
(Haley Lecture, Oxford, June 1989)
Thus he confesses
that Reality cannot be known, and that science is merely a descriptive device.
It is not therefore, applicable to the business of living but only to thought
in isolation. But note that, by adding a new dimension, he has described a
world which we cannot see or imagine. The Universe as we know it is now merely
a special case within a greater whole. What Hawkins has really attempted is to
deliberately remove God from the picture, but in doing so has attempted to
describe God in mathematical terms.
It could be
argued that if the Universe can be understood through reason, then the Universe
must conform to the rules of reason. Reason is then prior to the Universe. But
we do not only see the universe through reason and not all the phenomena of the
Universe conform to reason. We, therefore, have to accept something greater
than the Universe as the source of both the Universe and our reason.
9. The
picture which science has built of the Universe is geometrical in character.
This is very static and rigid. The world we see and experience is not like
this. It is dynamic with great variety, change, turbulence and randomness. Look
at the weather, the forests, hills and rivers. Geometry may appeal to the
intellect but not to the heart and feelings, and this faculty is as much part
of man as the intellect. There is, therefore, a discrepancy between science and
nature. This discrepancy reproduces itself in the difference between Art and
Technology, though both are human creations. These rigid geometrical patterns
underlie the machine and industry, all human organisations, political,
commercial and legal, as well as their thinking and ideological systems. It
pervades the whole of man-made life and produces strains and stresses because
of its incompatibility with human nature. Human beings, therefore, escape from
the city, office and factory, periodically to commune with nature.
10. Science
is a certain way of seeing things. Its concepts are formed by selecting certain
characteristics and relationships. It is absurd to suppose that the only
characteristics or relationships which an object possesses are those described
by science. There is much more to a plant, let alone a human being or the
earth, for instance, than is comprehended in a scientific description of them.
11. It
relies on analysis. But the collection of parts is not the same thing as the
whole. The pattern is missing. Not that analysis is not
useful. We need to know the parts and the relationship between them, but
we also need to know the wholeness of a thing, how the parts are related to the
whole, and how it fits into the whole of which it is part.
12. Certain
fundamental assumptions are made first and the search, selection and
interpretation of facts depends on these assumptions. The assumptions re-appear
in the conclusions. It is not a fact discovered by scientific research, for
instance, that the world is regulated deterministically by mechanical laws. It
is merely an integral part of how scientists think, or used to think, about the
world. Some of these assumptions consist of taking for granted a body of ideas
established by science previously. The new science is built on the old. But the
foundations are shaky and as in the case of Newtonian physics collapse with
further research.
13. It
depends on accurate measurements. But all measurements are inaccurate. They are
only approximations. It is assumed that approximations are sufficient for
calculation, that small values can be neglected. For instance, if we have a
figure of say 1.005, then we can neglect .005. If we multiply this by itself we
get even a smaller figure. However, this does not prove to be the case. Some
very small factors multiply and can produce very large effects. A small amount
of energy may be required to turn a switch that allows very large energies to
flow.
14. The
mathematics connected with some phenomena is so complex that only computers can
do them. The scientist himself cannot understand them. Many of the concepts
used in these calculations do not correspond to any experience, and cannot be
imagined.
15.
Experiments produce varying results. It is usual to take the average of the
results as true. The laws of science are based on these. It is assumed that the
variations are due to experimental errors, not due to variations in nature.
This is not true. Galileo studies the motion of a pendulum and concluded that
it was regular. But it is not.
16.
Scientists, as other people, see only that which conforms to their
pre-suppositions, usually current ways of seeing things. It is likely that Galileo
saw the regularity in the pendulum because he assumed the Law of motion.
Aristotle on the other hand thought that the swing of the pendulum could be
explained by the fact that the string constrained the weight from reaching its
natural state of equilibrium. This was a more correct view. When it was
discovered by some scientists that cigarette smoking can cause cancer,
scientists working for tobacco firms denied, on the basis of their own
research, that there was any such link. Indeed, it may be asked why many
smokers do not get cancer if such a link exists.
17. Much in
science depends on what the scientist considers to be a reasonable explanation.
Others may not think so. There are, therefore, several alternative views and
science is reduced to the view of the majority or of those regarded as
authorities owing to fame or power. Consider, for instance, the case of birds.
They spend a great amount of effort and time in building nests and feeding
their young. How can this behaviour be explained? The view accepted by most
Biologists is that these instincts have developed gradually by natural
selection. But there are many other people who do not accept this as a
reasonable explanation for several reasons:-
(a) If the birds did
not behave in this way in the first place the species could not have survived.
(b) It is also
necessary to know what is there about nature that allows such instincts to
arise in the first place.
(c) Many changes occur
which require the simultaneous arising of a great many interlinked mutations.
The possibility of this arising by chance seems too great.
18. Many
ideas are accepted or rejected because of the way they are formulated. An idea
that is not accepted becomes acceptable when it is reformulated in a different
way. This is connected with the inflexibility of the mind; the tendency to
literalism.
19. It is
assumed that a system can be isolated from all others and considered
separately. It is, however, true that nothing exists apart from its context and
that things are known by their effects on other
things. This being the case a system which is isolated in a laboratory is not
the same as that which exists in nature.
20. Science
tries to exclude the human observer. But all facts have to be perceived. There
are no facts except for their effects on human consciousness. But the nature of
perception has not been studied and taken into considerations. Newton supposed that the perception of a
colour, for instance, corresponded to a particular band in the frequency of
light waves. But as most people know colours and other qualities change
according to the context of other things they are seen in. Goethe, the poet who
also conducted many scientific experiments but had a holistic rather than an
analytical mind, had a different theory for perception. He regarded colour as a
transition from light to darkness. This theory is now taken more seriously.
21. Science
depends on fashions and conventions of thought which come and go, sometimes
quite arbitrarily and sometimes tied up with cultural, economic, political,
historical and even geographical conditions. A great number of theories which
were once accepted as true have been forgotten, and many which were rejected
have suddenly found favour again. It is merely a question of fashions of
thought that Newton’s
idea gained prevalence over those of Goethe. The same or a slightly different
set of facts can be fitted into more than one pattern. Which of these is
selected depends on extraneous causes. Many researches are concerned only with
conforming to current fashions in thinking. Many theories are accepted as dogma
so that all evidence which does not conform to them is ignored and no
alternative theories are sought. The Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang
Theory may well be of this kind. There are alternative theories.
22. Science
tries to simplify. It assumes that the complex can be understood by a
combination of the simple. This is not true. It establishes simple
relationships between variables e.g.. the variation of pressure with volume of a gas, and the
variation of the volume with the temperature and so on. Such linear equations
are easily solvable. But there are also Non-linear equations which cannot be
solved or have more than one solution. Friction, for instance, changes with the
velocity of motion. The rules themselves change as the process proceeds. The
velocity, pressure, density and viscosity of a fluid are related in a
non-linear way.
23. It
relies on what is repeatable and predictable. Research, however, shows that
even simple systems can produce complex and random results, and that
fundamentally things are unpredictable. This evidence comes from both Quantum
and Chaos theories. Particles in mass show turbulence containing random as well
as patterned motion. The velocity and position of sub-atomic particles cannot
be known at the same time. Historians and others know that there are a number
of phenomena which take place only once or rarely. Indeed, Life itself may have
arisen because of some unique set of circumstances in the distant past.
24. It uses
certain concepts in certain ways which exclude other ways of looking at things.
Aristotle taught that heavier things would fall faster than lighter things. Galileo
disproved him by throwing two different weights from the top of the Tower of Pisa. They arrived on the ground at
approximately the same time. However, if one pound of feathers and a pound of
lead were to be thrown down in this way, the feathers would take much longer to
reach the ground. The difference between the two men lies in the facts that one
was talking about the difference in density and the other of mass. One saw
things in isolation and the other saw how things actually behaved in the
environment in which they existed. The difference leads to great differences in
conclusion. Galileo’s conclusions really apply only to motions in a vacuum
which cannot be found anywhere. Things always move through some medium and
interact with it.
25.
Hypothesis or Theories are built in such a way that if observation shows a
difference between theory and practice, then some other theory has to be
created to explain this. But this allows one to create a great many different
theories to explain the same facts. According to Newton all motions were uniform in a straight
line. To explain why all observed motions did not conform to this law another
law had to be invented. Changes in motion were due to force and proportional to
them. But no one has seen a force. How do we know it exists and how do we
measure it? We measure it by the change in motion! A vicious circle. Evolution
takes place by the survival of the fittest. What do we mean by the ‘fittest’.
We mean that which survives! Another vicious circle.
26. All
concepts are defined in terms of each other. This creates a closed system,
allowing nothing new to enter. The results of scientific research are not
independent of the concepts used. They are not independent of the methods used
either. Different methods will produce different conclusions. Light can be
regarded as being either corpuscular or wave-like in nature. Perhaps it has
still other properties.
27. It is
assumed that the state of equilibrium to which things tend, the Attractor, is
necessarily static or regular, but this is not necessarily so. A great number
of what are called Strange Attractors have been found.
These are patterns rather than states of stability. The existence of these has
to be explained.
28. In
order to study the simple relationships between the chosen variables, science
needs to control the experiment in order to keep out all other sources of
interference, keeping other variables constant. To study the relationship
between pressure and volume, for instance, temperature and other factors must
be kept constant. But this depends on knowing what these other factors are. This
is not always the case. Perhaps there are magnetic and electrical changes.
Indeed, it may well be that the observed regularity depends on the presence of
some condition that is as yet unknown because it is uniformly present on this
planet or in the laboratory conditions. The conditions in the laboratory are
not those obtained in nature. It may be stated that the entities studied by
science have been created by science itself in the laboratory.
29. In all
scientific research reality should come first. The theories are built to
explain them. Magnetism was a fact of experience long before a science was
built around it. There are a great many unexplained facts still in existence.
But it is often the case that the scientist will reject or refuse to look at
these or is even unable to see them because they do not conform to his
theories. Many scientists make pompous or authoritative statements as to what
is impossible or false having no experience of the matters they pronounce upon.
Scientific progress is often made against the opposition of often prestigious
scientists. They forget that Science is a progressive thing and that,
therefore, at no time can it be said that it has the full truth.
30.
Scientists pride themselves on considering only facts and neglecting value
judgements. But science cannot be independent of value judgements. The desire
to exclude value judgements is itself a value judgement, so is the desire to do
science. Facts by themselves have no value, they have to be sought and
interpreted. There is a purpose in collecting facts, organising them and
applying them. The direction in which science progresses depends on these
purposes. The scientist is employed by Industry and Governments for their own
purposes. It is not merely the case that the funding of research determines the
direction in which knowledge will develop but the need for profit and power
itself governs how the facts will be interpreted, organised and applied. It is
precisely this false notion about science which is the cause of the social,
political and ecological disasters caused by science and technology.
31. Science
proceeds by gathering facts and creating hypothesis to explain them. These must
then be proved or disproved by further investigation of their consequences in
order to keep to consistency. But the hypothesis depends on the facts perceived
and on insight, intuition, inspiration or revelation and not on calculation or
reason. These, in turn, depend on the quality of the scientist and on the
times. Science does not exist apart from scientist and is not a god.
32. Science
relies on the creation of precise concepts and descriptive languages. The
precision of the concepts does not, however, correspond to actual objects and
events that are far more flexible. Nature seldom allows the kind of absolute
distinctions that correspond to the kind of categories and compartments which
analysis demands.
33. There
is often a misuse of the word “cause”. When a statistical relationship has been
established, for example between consumption of fats and coronary heart
disease, then the one is regarded as the cause of the other. But these
statistics show that some people who do not consume much fat get coronary heart
disease. On the other hand many of those who consume much fat do not get
coronary heart disease. What are the causes for this? It may also be argued
that statistical relations can be found between any two factors. It may be
shown that long haired people either suffer more or less from digestive
troubles than those who regularly cut their hair. Correlating one single factor
with another is likely to be much too simplistic a way of proceeding. A
combination of causes and their relationship with each other should probably be
seen as a cause in its own right.
It is
probably correct to say that numerous factors together create a condition in
which certain other conditions arise by channelling certain processes.
Consider the argument:-
Drinking Whiskey and orange juice causes drunkenness. So does Rum and orange
juice, Brandy and orange juice, etc.. Therefore, drunkenness
is caused by orange juice. Smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer and other
diseases in the same way. 80% of smokers contract it. The question, however, is
why the other 20% do not. Suppose now that it was discovered that these 80%
also suffered from stress that made them smoke. What would be the cause of
cancer then? If some factor X acting on A1 produced A2, but acting on B1
produced B2, then no causal connection can be found between A2 and B2, and yet
the two are not independent.
The cause of
a phenomenon may not be a single cause, but a particular relationship between
particular things. The concept may not discriminate between variations. Suppose
a certain condition, A1 is the result of a known interaction between B1, B2 and
B3, but also between B4, B5 and B6 which may not be known. Suppose also that B1
is caused by interactions between C1, C2 and C3. If then scientific tests show
that A1 is present, this leads to the conclusion that C1 must have been
present. Many false assertions are made because (a) the role of C1 and C2 are
ignored, (b) it is not considered that A1 may be the result of a completely
different process involving B4, B5 and B6, (c) that A, B or C may be composite
concepts containing many ingredients or variations each having different
properties.
34. Western science assumes that the only
things that are real are objects and events. There is, however, another way of
looking at things. We can regard structures, order or patterns as being the
main subject of interest. We concentrate our attention on the functions of
things. We may describe substances according to the kind of energy they carry
and the functions they carry out, rather than the substances they are composed
of.
The
Scientific description of water is that it consists of molecules composed of an
atom of oxygen and two of hydrogen. In fact this description is merely a
laboratory description. Water has many forms and fulfils many different
functions. It can be ice or vapour. It is different in rivers or ponds and the
sea. It is quite unlike either hydrogen or oxygen. The fact that it can be
split up in this way is merely one of its many properties. A molecule may not
be a simple structure at all. The electrons may not be revolving round the
atoms in strict orbits, they may be revolving round
the common centre formed by the nuclei of the atoms in the molecule, or through
the whole drop of water. The electrons may be exchanging their orbits, or may
even be moving between the nucleus and orbits. Water is often found dissociated
into charged radicals of oxygen and hydrogen which are moving separately. The
fact that certain things happen under controlled laboratory conditions is not
really a proof that it also happens under the conditions provided by nature.
35. A
scientific theory must have the following properties:-
(a) It must
explain observed facts by the simplest and least number of already existing
concepts. This allows consistency with already existing knowledge. However, it
is no guarantee that some other concepts may not be more correct or useful.
This requirement also leads to the invention of concepts for which no physical
basis exists. They speak of virtual particles for examples. None have ever been
observed, but they are required in order to explain discrepancies in many
experiments.
(b) It must
be able to make verifiable predictions. There is, however, no guarantee that
the conditions required to produce the same phenomena is known, can be created
or will occur again, or that under other conditions the same phenomena will not
occur due to other causes.
(c)
Theories should be falsifiable by facts. No number of facts that conform to the
theory can prove it because there is no guarantee that we will not come across
a fact that flouts the theory. A theory cannot be proved,
it can only be more or less useful. A single contrary fact can disprove it.
However, many theories remain in force despite contradicting facts because new
theories can be built to explain why they flout the first theory. Scientists,
moreover, look for those facts which fit the theory, not those which do not.
(d) The
facts obtained depend on the procedures used and the conditions under which
experiments are carried out. These are coming under scrutiny to an increasing
extent. It is not only that the results of experiments are in dispute, but that
the experiments do not match a real situation in life, and only a few of the
factors which go to make up a complex situation have been isolated. Indeed, the
facts obtained refer only to the experimental situation not to the real world.
36. It is
supposed that only two things are needed to make the future predictable:-
(a)
Knowledge of the Laws that govern the changes with time. Not all these laws are
known.
(b)
Knowledge of the complete initial state of the system. This should also include
its whole environment and the conditions in which it exists and is likely to
exist.
The initial
state of the Universe is not known and cannot be known since all known laws do
not exist there but arise from it.
There is,
however, sufficient reason to believe that a third factor is also required:-
(c) The
human factor, the concepts, activities, models and instruments used, the attitudes, purposes, and the state of
consciousness. All these change over the centuries and differ between different
people.
37. There
is probably a logical mistake in supposing that scientific descriptions are
other than analogical. Though things can be classified according to their
similarities, no two things are exactly alike. Therefore, that which applies to
the one does not apply precisely to the other. Indeed, we merely assume that
the object conforms to our definition. It is a mistake also to suppose that
science deals with objects rather than with the experience of objects.
38.
Consider a simple action like catching a ball, swimming or cycling. These are
done quite sub-consciously by human beings. It is possible consciously to work
out the mathematical equations that are involved in these actions. But they are
very complex, requiring much effort and time, and few people can do so. And yet
this knowledge does not enable a person to perform these actions. It follows
that the sub-conscious mind is much cleverer by many factors than the conscious
mind. It would seem, therefore, that the scientist would be better employed
trying to become conscious of his subconscious mind that has a better grasp of
information, better processing power, and greater ability to manipulate it.
39. The
justification for science is that it is useful either to understand or control
phenomena or to benefit humanity. Science, however, has not always been useful.
Sometimes it has been harmful. The most obvious examples are the weapons of
war, harmful gases and bacteria and devices used by criminals and spies. Atomic
and chemical installations have produced ecological disaster. Machinery of
various kinds though, useful, also cause deaths and disease through accident
and discourage the cultivation of skills. Potentially useful devices such as
computers, television and video and sound recorders are, in fact, used
harmfully. If, as many scientists argue, science is not responsible for the
uses made of its products, then the question arises: - what value does it have?
Surely, it is unintelligent to pursue something that has no value. Apart from this,
some of its products, such as weapons, have been created by scientists
deliberately for no others purpose but do harm. If the value is in enabling
understanding, how is it that much of the results of science are not understood
by scientists let alone anyone else? If it is to increase human control why is
it that much of it produces unpredicted and uncontrollable results? It is much
more likely that they pursue it because it is an obsession or a fashion or a
livelihood or because it bestows wealth, power or prestige, not because of the
desire for truth or goodness, and this shows in the way it is pursued and
applied.
40. The
entry of women into science has transformed it. It is not only a fact that
women have made some discoveries which could have been made by either sex, but
that they have selected and seen relationships which men did not and could not
have seen owing to the differences in their nature. Science is not, therefore,
as objective as was supposed. However, science has become much more subjective
since their entry. It is now accepted that a distinction has to be made within
science itself between the facts, the interpretation and the purpose or
application. But the last two are not objective factors. The result of this is
that though it was at one time thought that there is only one science, there
could now be different kinds of science, a Feminine, a Marxist or an Islamic
one, for instance. This idea is still resisted by many scientists.
41. Many predictions or suggestions made by
scientists based on inadequate knowledge and an amoral attitude that neglected
side effects, were falsified or even dangerous and absurd. Some nuclear
scientists, for instance, suggested that atomic bombs could be used to create
new harbours, waterways, and to level mountains for agricultural purposes. Much
excitement was created because of this. But nuclear energy turned out to be
dangerous and these dreams were shattered.
42. Many
insist on the freedom of research, or the right to produce any technology which
it is possible to make. But when asked: what if they created a virulent
bacteria or virus in their laboratories which threatened new epidemics, how
would they deal with it? They had no answer. What if genetic engineering,
psychological methods, drugs, organ transplantation, and the advances in
artificial organs created monsters, disturbed the ecological balance of the
world, removed abilities together with defects, and allowed dictators or states
to produce a human population which served only their psychopathic interest? What
if the rich are able to use the rest of the population as sources of organs for
themselves? The idea that science has no connection with morality and that it
is separate from the rest of human life or even from the world, cannot be
sustained. It too, must, like all other human activities be governed by social
responsibility.
43. A great
amount of experimentation done on animals is unnecessary for several reasons: -
(a) The results could have been worked out from what
is already known. (b) Some experiments are based on stupid assumptions,
expectations and interpretations. (c) Many are done for frivolous purposes such
as the development of cosmetics.
44.
Industrial and Political secrecy means multiplication of the same research,
thereby wasting resources, energy and effort. It increases the power of some to
dangerous levels. If the purpose of science is the increase in human knowledge
and understanding, then this secrecy involves a self-contradiction.
45. The
purpose of science should be education, to raise the level of awareness of the
whole society, to enlighten. But science tends to be confined to a small group,
does not enlighten even this group who remain primitive in all other respects,
and it creates imbalance by developing the intellect at the expense of feeling,
action and consciousness, and even the intellect is given a particular bias.
All this can be determined from a study of the life histories of scientists.
Science has not, therefore, had a deliberate evolutionary effect, except perhaps
indirectly by changing the environment to which people must adjust.
46.
Consciousness is a phenomenon that is part of the Universe, and an important
ingredient in all knowledge. It is impossible that science can ever describe
the Universe completely without also studying and taking into consideration
consciousness. But consciousness is the awareness of the wholeness of things
and no whole is describable by means of concepts which refer to parts.
47. It is
supposed that Science gives us objective knowledge. Therefore, there is an
agreement or consensus between scientists as to what is true. Conversely, the
agreement between scientists ensures objectivity. But there are certainly
controversies between scientists and that which is regarded as truth changes
from time to time. This contradicts the supposition. In fact, theories are
constructed by scientists and though they must be confirmed by experimental
results, we only have partial knowledge at any one time. This means that even
if the theory is confirmed many times it could be falsified in future by some
new fact. A large amount of science is done using statistics. There is no
certainty but various amounts of probabilities between 0 to 1.
(a) First
the data of observation have to be perceived, selected and interpreted
according to a conceptual system. One has to work out what the probability of
getting evidence of the truth.
(b) The
data collected is organised to form a theory. There may be several different
theories depending what data are selected, what importance they are given and
how they are organised.
(c) The
theory is tested. The greater the number of times it is
affirmed the greater the probability that it is valid, and the greater the
number of times it is negated the less the probability that it is valid.
But other theories can be made to explain the negatives or positives.
(d) It is
necessary to assess what the probability of getting evidence is if the theory
is true compared to the probability of getting evidence if the theory is false.
This gives the Likelihood Ratio, LR. Suppose it is 2, then the belief in the
theory doubles. But the question is:- Doubles from
what? The original belief depends on several psychological factors:- (i) the frequency of experience
which may be accidental depending on the environment in which one has lived,
(ii) the actions and behaviour of the person that create the reactions, (iii)
the strength of the impression made owing to interest or significance, (iv) the
amount of systematisation that experience has undergone such that the
experience is reinforced by multiple connections.
It follows
that in all these respects science alone cannot attain objectivity. This is
because different scientists have different belief systems, evaluate facts
differently and consensus is not reached. Even where consensus exists it is
only because they have the same conceptual system and procedures and the same
training and conduct their observation and experiments under the same
conditions. The objective world is known only by its effects on the mind which
translates it according to its nature and that is what we know. Furthermore, we
translate the experience into concepts and descriptions.
The
application of science has been very successful in transforming life on this
planet, not all of them good. It must not be allowed to hypnotise us into
failing to see its limitations.
It seems
fair to say that Science has produced its own superstitions. Among these are
the following:-
That
something can arise without a cause; that science is something having an
objective reality apart from the quality of the people who do it; that human
beings are perfect and at any one point have the capacity to know all reality;
that there is no more in experience than can be thought about, or more to
reality than can be experienced; that science is not affected by human purposes
and values, and that it can be done or have a value without this; that the
notion of purpose is essentially different from the notion of cause so that one
can be applied to the processes of the universe and not the other though both
are integral to human thought; that the whole is nothing more than the sum of
its parts; that the Absolute ultimate reality can be described in terms of
notions which apply to relative things; that all thinking can satisfactorily
stop at some point without ultimately coming to an infinite regression; that
the phenomenon of consciousness can be ignored.
The
assumptions, on which science was based, namely objectivity, causation and
confidence in human ability to know the world through reason have broken down.
If this is so then science itself has become invalid as a method of obtaining
truth or truth is other than what science gives us. It is because scientists
now believe that nothing is ultimately absolutely certain that many people also
reject religion where certain ideas are held as absolutely certain. But there
seems to be a misunderstanding. The religious man must not just think but act
and this requires confidence. Some things have to be taken as certainties,
namely that we exist, that Reality exists and that we are a dependant part of
it. And this applies also to scientific activity.
Even if
Science should eventually find a Unified Field Theory, the single formula that
explains everything, the three factors to which science has reduced phenomena
(a) the fundamental forces, (b) the initial conditions and (c) the fundamental
constants, and matter, life (i.e.. its urges) as well as consciousness, then we
are still left with the question of how to explain the existence of this
Unified Theory. It will be a mental construct, which is given an objective and
universal role. W will have to attribute it to the Mind of Allah, where Allah
Himself remains unknown, and is capable to producing other Universes based on
other Unified Fields, including Heaven.
----------<O>----------
The Islamic attitude to Science should probably be as follows:-
(1) There is no incompatibility between science and Islam. Science deals
with facts and the causes of phenomena and religion deals with values, motives and
purposes. The phenomena of the world are created by Allah and science has to
explore what exists and how they are constructed and inter-related. Human
beings have been given the faculties to do this by Allah.
(2) Science is a human activity, a part of life. It is not independent
of all other human activities.
(3) Human beings are interdependent with the environment. Their fate is
linked with the world. The purpose of science, as all other human activities,
is to benefit themselves and this entails responsibility
for the world on which they depend.
(4) If an action is to be intelligent, conscious and controlled rather
than automatic, mechanical or impulsive, it must be done for a purpose. This
implies the existence of objective values.
(5) Religion is a system which controls the whole of life in a
comprehensive, intelligent and conscious manner. Science is, therefore, a part
of religion. Its purpose, the pursuit of knowledge is an integral part of Islam.
(6) Some aspects of Religion should also be contained in science since
they help in the search, interpretation, systematisation and application of
scientific discoveries.
(7) In view of the Anthropic Principle we must give up the idea that
Science is objective in the Western sense of the word. The results of
experiments depend on what people do. The experiments themselves are conducted
according to their motives and interests, and the interpretation of the results
depends on the system of ideas behind them. Science is not so much a
description of the real world as a system of attitudes and concepts which are
subject to the historical process as all other things are. It is a certain way
of describing certain kinds of experiences for certain purposes.
(8) Science ought to be objective in the Islamic sense. That is, human
beings are Vicegerents and have a responsibility with respect to the
environment, the community and their own development.
(9) The word knowledge is much more comprehensive than science. Science
refers to only a certain kind of knowledge.
(10) Science is useful for certain purposes, just as machines and
instruments are. It should be used for beneficial purposes. Ethics is prior to
Science, since the reason for the pursuit of knowledge depends on its value.
Science should be ethical and the scientist should be held responsible for his
actions.
(11) A painter constructs a picture according to how he sees an object.
The scientist does something similar. The object is gradually constructed in
accordance with the data he searches for and finds, and how he interprets and
organises it. There are many ways of doing this and they do not invalidate each
other. Science is a form of Art like any other human activity.
(12) There is no single method which can be said to be ‘The scientific
Method’. There are many methods used in science. There may be other methods and
possible formulations which may be equally or more useful, or useful for other
purposes.
(13) Science is progressive. More data is being added and more facts are
being discovered. They are also continually being organised in different ways.
At no time can it be said that we possess all the facts and have organised them
in the best possible way. All theories should be held tentatively.
(14) Theories which are unproved scientifically may or may not be true,
but they may be interesting ways of seeing things and may prove to be useful in
certain ways. We ought not to dismiss them.
(15) Science is a social phenomenon, created by the collective action of
many people present and past, influenced by its culture and affecting the
community. It should, therefore, be under social control.
An Islamic Science may, perhaps, be constructed on the following principles:-
1. We cannot know anything which is not an affect on our consciousness. Our
knowledge therefore depends partly on the external world and partly on the
nature of our minds. It is, therefore, a mistake to suppose that a factual
statement refers to the external world. It refers to our experience. Science is
a human activity and there is no science apart from human beings. It is
necessary, therefore, to cultivate human potentialities. This includes
consciousness, conscience and will. We need correct thinking, motivation and
action.
2. There are three ways of extending knowledge:-
(a) The improvement of
self-awareness. The human body is a much more sensitive instrument than any
other and it has the advantage that we are directly and more intimately in
contact with it. This awareness is improved by turning attention inwards and by
exercise. Self-awareness is also required for self-criticism and discrimination
between the effects of inner physiological and psychological processes and
those caused by external events.
(b) Extension of
external consciousness. It is perfectly possible to concentrate consciousness
and suspend thought while examining the effects things around us have on us, be
they material objects, plants, places, or people.
(c) The system of
concepts and assumptions can be overhauled in order to allow greater natural
freedom to the faculties of thought. The conceptual framework by means of which
the data of experience or experiment are interpreted should not be regarded as
facts of nature, but convenient and useful methods by which we understand
phenomena. Some conceptual systems may be more useful than others for some
purposes rather than others. The conceptual system used in Chinese medicine and
acupuncture, for instance is incompatible with that of Western science. It is
nevertheless useful. The same applies to Yoga, Shamanism, Homoeopathy
and so on. Having understood this it becomes possible to be open
minded and examine or construct all kinds of systems, and eventually to create
a comprehensive synthesis.
3. The idea that the world is dead, inert and, therefore, wholly
mechanical and that the behaviour of objects in it is exclusively determined by
external forces should be rejected. All things have an inner or inherent nature
which also affects their behaviour. There is no warrant for the dichotomy
between mind and matter, purpose and cause, fact and value. All things have a
psychological as well as physical aspect.
4. Science is a study of phenomena. No assumptions should be made about
the ultimate nature of real things since we cannot know this. The fundamental
is given and must be accepted. A description is always made in terms of other
things. But an object presents itself to experience through inertia or
resistance, and, this gives us the notion of Mass. It also presents itself to us through
change, motion, behaviour, and, therefore, gives rise to the notion of energy.
There is a third quality which arises from the experience of structure,
patterns and order. But this is connected with consciousness. All these are the
properties of phenomena. It is probably true to say that materiality,
life and consciousness are the properties of all phenomena to various degrees.
Mass, energy and order are different aspects of the same thing. There is a
correspondence between the way we experience external things and ourselves.
Looking outwards we see ourselves as a material body. Looking inwards we
experience ourselves as a conscious being. Looking at our behaviour we see
ourselves as living and inter-acting.
5. The whole is prior to, greater and more than the sum of its parts. Conversely,
when a thing is divided into parts, the sum of the parts is always less than
they were in combination. Things tend to come together to form wholes which are
more than the sum of their parts.
6. The idea that science makes no value judgements, and should make none
should be rejected. What we seek and perceive, and how we interpret organise
and apply knowledge depends on our motives. These should also be objectively
correct. Science is not a purely intellectual activity. It requires the
coordination of thought, feeling and action.
7. The purpose of Science should be “to serve Allah”. This means:-
(a) The subject of
study is comprehended in the phrase “to know the nature, will and works of
Allah”.
(b) To develop the
appropriate motives.
(c) To develop the
necessary skills and abilities.
There are, therefore, three aspects to it. Things should be studied in a
broad context in a unitary fashion and not as independent, isolated things.
8. Human beings are part of the world process, and science has a
function within this context. The exploitation of the planet for the whims of
man is to be rejected. The planet is not our property but a trust for the
administration of which we are responsible. Our welfare and development depends
on how we fulfil this trust. The purpose of knowledge is development, not
merely to understand the world or to use it for economic purposes or the
fulfilment of whims. This includes the need to
(a) Understand the world,
(b) To adjust to it, and
(c) To apply knowledge to solve world problems
and facilitate the balance and welfare of all things.
9. It is not enough to know how things behave, though this is sufficient
for technology. We also need to know why they behave in this way, how they
relate to us and how they fit into the general scheme of things.
10. Reductionism which strips nature of all qualities except those which
can be fitted into only predefined concepts, categories and systems should be
rejected. On the contrary, the meaning of words should be flexible enough to
include new connotations as new discoveries are made. Science should not be
confined to only particular method or sets of procedures. Nothing whatever can
be regarded as lying outside the field of scientific scrutiny.
However, these are merely tentative suggestions and will have to be
altered with further thought.
----------<O>----------
There is an experiment of significance in connection with this subject.
A blank white sheet of paper is covered with coloured dots in a random fashion.
Forty or more colours are used, including violet, blue green, yellow red,
brown, and black. A person is asked to find patterns in it. If these patterns
are called objects or concepts, then he can also discover patterns between
these and so on.
Another person is shown this piece of paper and told what these patterns
are. He can find them fairly easily. But if he is not told what these patterns
are, but asked to find some, then the task is more difficult. He will find
patterns and patterns of patterns, but these will be different from those
discovered by the first person. It is also possible that each coloured dot is
itself made up of a combination of other colours. If he can analyse and discern
these, then the patterns he makes are necessarily different. On the other hand,
the observer may not distinguish between different shades of a colour and
regard them as a single colour. The patterns, and
patterns of patterns he sees will again be different. There are levels of
perception.
The
significance of this experiment for Science is fairly obvious.