Science and Reality
There exist competing opinions about the definition of science. Science is commonly recognized as a systematic method that enables people to learn by hypothesis testing, theories and observation among others. Theories are largely accepted as true since they aid in explaining various phenomena. While addressing the topic above, it is prudent to assess whether scientific methods are reliable in providing the truth. More importantly, scientific knowledge is not a smooth or an ideal benchmark for examining the truth about reality though it possesses probable basis of predisposition. Through science, the human being is able to examine the structure and behavior of both the natural and physical world. Nonetheless, the scientific explanations and/or discoveries have little connection with the reality since they are all a creation of man. Science does not tell us the truth about reality.
There are various challenges that are associated with science. Firstly, science founded on empiricism is untrue. Ideally, knowledge achieved through experiences and sense is misleading. It is not possible to ascertain whether all the knowledge is acquired through experiences. It is not possible to determine whether science tells us the whole truth about reality or not. Secondly, science that depends on induction is misleading. Empirical science, for instance, inevitably assumes stimulation (eliasayala, 2012). There is no clear justification to assume that stimulation processes are valid when an individual’s outlook about nature is not based on the Supreme Being. For example, if a scientist discovers 500 crocodiles that are white, it would be misleading to assume that all crocodiles are white. As a result, the truth about nature cannot be realistically gained through observation. Additionally, it is not possible to test or determine the credibility of some facts. In physics, it is recognized that electrical charges repel one another. However, we do not have a reliable explanation to help in understanding the truth on the matter. Various theories competing theories have come up to help in explaining the matter. Such competing opinions cannot give truthful information. Albert Einstein, a German theorist argued that “We know nothing about it at all…the real nature of things that we shall never know, never” (eliasayala, 2012). Additionally, some scientific explanations are based on biased data that helps to suit the knowledge of a given scholar. In view of this, understanding reality cannot be realized through scientific explanations. In fact, what appears factual is the ‘logic truth’. The mathematical solution, (2+2=4), is a logical truth that is accepted everywhere. Nonetheless, this does not qualify it to explain truth on reality. Reality seeks to expound how things exist, whether seen or not. Further, it tries to explain situations that have existed, exists or those that are likely to exist in future. Various philosophers and scientists have sought to explain reality in relation to science. Truth refers to things or situations that are real. Scientific knowledge seeks to promote the human nature and scientific input by giving a deeper and systematized understanding of both the physical and natural world. However, the legitimacy and credibility of the science are largely dependent on the conventional criteria and processes used. Science is only a model that can assist in explaining reality, but does not give truthful explanations since they are disapproved or improved with time.
Nonetheless, scientific explanations are carried out through systematic processes that can be easily proven. As a result, the emerging information is truthful, although it can be improved in later stages due to emerging technology and innovations. Most of our