What Is the Meaning of Science?

This post is the seventh in a series. If you’ve just stumbled onto this series, you may want to start here.

I thought I might start today on a series of posts detailing each of the four views I presented last week, but after starting to write the first post I’ve decided I want to address an important question.

What Is Science?

The term science has an interesting history. This has led, in my opinion, to a misunderstanding of what modern science is all about.

Modern science is the pursuit of knowledge characterized by the development of testable, disprovable explanations and predictions about the world around us. These explanations are called theories. A good theory is based on observation and is testable, provable, and will provide the basis for predictions about future observations.

Any field of study or inquiry which does not produce testable, observable, disprovable theories which provide predictions for future observations is not science. Period. A lot of people take issue with this, but I think the confusion is a result of three things.

Scientists Are Wrong All the Time

Not only might scientist be wrong sometimes, they are wrong all the time. That’s the nature of science itself. You observe, you guess, you predict, you observe, and you change your guess. That’s how it works. You are supposed to get things wrong. Dogma, on the other hand, is about picking an idea and sticking with it no matter what your senses tell you. That may or may not be a valid way of thinking about the world, but it is NOT science. It simply is not.

There May Be Other Avenues to Knowledge

It is important to note that science is NOT the only method for learning about the world around us. I believe in God. I can’t prove it and I don’t expect to. I presuppose God’s existence. I don’t claim to believe based on science. It is faith – not science.

Is it possible to be a theist and a scientist. I think it is. Is it possible to be a scientist and be certain you know the truth. Yes, but the point of conflict arises when you discover something that doesn’t fit what you know to be true about the world. What do you do when that happens? Do you insist you are right in spite of all the evidence, or do you change your theory? It is your answer to that question that determines if what you do is science.

Science Requires Naturalism

Good science requires only a naturalistic approach to reality. Many people, myself included, believe that there is more to knowledge than what we can know from science, but science DOES rely on naturalism. The supernatural, by definition, is not always observable. So it is NOT science. Even the Bible says that we can trust our observations.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

There is considerable debate about whether this verse teaches that we can know about God via a study of the creation. I don’t think that’s what it is saying, but it does clearly indicate one thing. We can trust our observations. The verse clearly says that we can understand enough from the things that are made that we are without excuse. If our observations could not be trusted, this would certainly not be the case.

So, what about the conflict between science and faith?

I’ve already written a little bit about this. I don’t think conflict is possible. The scenario I mentioned above – what happens when I find evidence that rules out what I believe? – doesn’t scare me, because I don’t think it will ever happen. I can confidently pursue knowledge via the scientific method and learn from the scientific theories of others, because I know our observations can be trusted.

Is it possible that many people don’t want to learn from science because they are afraid of what they might learn. It takes more faith for a theist to learn from science than it does to promote dogma.

If you ask me.