On the Limitations of Scientific Reasoning

It is clear that the principle of ignoramus (ignoramus et ignorabimus) has propelled our species’ efforts to characterize the world around us by opening an avenue for objective reasoning through the scientific method, or science more broadly. The emphasis on the world around us and objectively are of particular importance in the preceding description of science. For science does not concern itself with the internal world of ideas and subjectivity any more than it can describe those aspects objectively. However, the limits of objective reasoning become apparent upon investigation.

What is the ultimate goal of scientific reasoning? Is there an ultimate goal? Perhaps not; one could view science as a process of unfolding descriptions of our surrounding complexity rather than being particularly purpose-driven. However, it would not be out of line to speak of scientists as being focused on characterizing the world around us as it truly is, calling that characterization reality. Under this principle the ultimate goal of science could be seen as a complete characterization of reality. It has long been accepted by scientists in specific fields, such as theoretical physics, that such a goal is not only ill-founded but entirely unachievable. Hence, these scientists have adopted a principle of model-dependent realism. Under this principle a model is “real” only insofar as it adequately explains observed phenomena and predicts future phenomena. Therefore, the nature of our universe is seen to be more like Einstein’s description with absolute spacetime that curves and bends rather than Newton’s universe of absolute space and absolute time that exists standalone and unmodifiable simply because Einstein’s interpretation explains observations that Newton’s could not. Importantly though, both Einstein’s and Newton’s descriptions are just useful tools to facilitate discussion.

Does the ability of a model to explain our observations truly give us a description of reality? There is an important note to be taken here, one which was raised by prominent scientists and particularly by those heading the field of quantum physics (e.g. Niels Bohr), which is that we never have direct access to the world around us. Of course, this was noted in advance by philosophers such as Kant, but our focus here is on the limitations of science. Thus, we must make several assumptions in order for our analysis of science to be of any benefit towards the endeavor to characterize reality. Those assumptions center primarily around the aforementioned objectivity of our measurements. Of course, we know that our measurements are never truly objective, but this assumption holds rather well in our day-to-day experimentation and only really breaks down when we go to the quantum level. Or does it? That alone is another assumption - that our observing of the world around us does not immediately and by very nature of the observation fundamentally alter (or create) that world.

One reasonable question to ask at this point regards additional clarification on what constitutes an observation. We casually refer to “the world around us,” but this already inherently assumes a separation of an observer and that which is observed; or, alternatively, between self and other. This distinction seems rather unfounded upon closer examination, as we realize that both self and other are equal components of our perceptual reality. So, then, how can observation be occurring without an observer? Now we have squarely left the realm within which science has been capable of providing answers, and arrived at the heart of the problem.

Science as it currently stands relies upon necessary but limiting assumptions of objectivity that by their nature only allow science to describe reality through model dependency. Consider a future in which theoretical physics has advanced beyond the standard model, perhaps past even String Theory or M-Theory to more advanced, robust, and complete models of the universe. Models that perfectly and completely explain and predict external phenomena. Are these models then a complete picture of reality? If your instinct is to answer yes then I challenge you to consider further the possibility that a purely objective point of reasoning cannot paint a complete portrait of reality. The external universe that is being described by science is another object of your perception, and the universe is not synonymous with reality.