This blog post explores whether science can reach absolute truth or is merely a tool revealing the limits of human perception.
In 1968, Jerome Isaac Friedman, along with two fellow scientists, proved the existence of ‘quarks’ through the ‘SLAC-MIT experiment’ using an electron accelerator. Based on this discovery, modern understanding holds that atomic nuclei are composed not of protons and neutrons, but of smaller particles called quarks. However, if future technologies for analyzing atomic nuclei become more precise, it is possible that particles smaller than quarks could be discovered. Therefore, we cannot definitively state that “quarks are the most fundamental particles constituting atomic nuclei.” Looking back at the history of science, such issues have frequently arisen not only in scientific discoveries but also in theoretical aspects. Before Einstein’s ‘Theory of Relativity’ emerged, Newtonian physics explained many laws of mechanics by assigning the concept of ‘mass’ as an unchanging quantity within the existing framework. After Newtonian mechanics appeared, people regarded it as truth because it could explain most natural phenomena. However, when Einstein proposed the formula E=mc², he revealed the error in Newtonian mechanics through the concept that mass changes with speed. While Einstein’s theory of relativity now holds a crucial position in modern physics, this theory too may be modified in the future, much like Newtonian mechanics. Thus, past scientific examples make it difficult to confidently assert that science can reach absolute truth.
Today, we call the activity of starting from curiosity about natural phenomena, discovering and interpreting the principles or laws of nature, and building a consistent body of knowledge “science.” As discussed earlier, it is difficult to assert that science can reach absolute truths or laws of the natural world. So, how should we understand and accept science?
Before answering this question, it is necessary to examine various perspectives on accepting science. Many philosophers of science have proposed their own scientific methodologies to guide science’s proper development, analyzed its developmental process and meaning, and endeavored to enhance its credibility. Among the early proponents of scientific methodology were the inductivists, centered around Francis Bacon. They sought to generalize observable results through human senses to derive universal factual relationships. However, the methodology proposed by inductivism was criticized for its limitations: scientific laws or theories could be overturned by exceptional cases, and observation itself could not precede a specific theory.
On the other hand, falsificationists argued that establishing scientific theories requires hypotheses with high falsifiability, and theories based on such hypotheses can develop into more convincing science. For example, consider the hypotheses: “Mars orbits the Sun in an elliptical path” and “All planets orbit the Sun in elliptical paths.” Refutation of the first hypothesis affects the second, but the reverse is not true. Falsificationists evaluate a theory based on the second hypothesis as superior because it is more falsifiable than the first and can explain more phenomena. However, scientific theories based on falsifiability cannot exclude the possibility of new theories emerging, and they have not fully overcome the limitations of induction, where observation is dependent on theory. Even Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of falsificationism, emphasized that scientific knowledge developed through falsification is only an approximation of truth, not absolute truth.
Thus, while we have examined various scientific methodologies proposed by philosophers of science, these are merely approaches to correctly engage with science. Even their respective methodologies have limitations in clearly defining the principles and truths of the natural world. Given these limitations of scientific methodology, we face the question of whether science can absolutely grasp the principles of the external world. Newtonian mechanics was a theory that could accurately grasp natural principles with the measurement technology of its time, but as measurement technology advanced, quantum theory and relativity emerged, revealing its limitations in explaining the principles of the microscopic world. So, does an absolute truth exist that can clearly define the natural world?
Philosophers’ views on science today are broadly divided into realism and instrumentalism. Realists place the purpose of science in describing the true nature of the world. That is, the scientific theories realists speak of are those that correctly describe a world existing independently of us; if such a theory matches the world’s mode of existence, they consider it true. In contrast, instrumentalists regard scientific theories as useful devices for connecting observable situations. They view scientific theories and discoveries as mere fictions, arguing they are simply tools for understanding nature. Unlike realists, instrumentalists thus reject the concept of absolute truth or show little interest in it. Realists also pursue absolute truth, but it is difficult to see scientific theories we consider correct as precisely matching the real world. That is, regardless of which position an individual takes, it is difficult to claim that science has perfectly elucidated absolute truth.
Discovering absolute truth in the external world is, in reality, an extremely difficult task. From Western natural philosophers to various modern philosophers, attempts to find absolute truth have borrowed human reasoning and the absolute power of God, yet no complete answer has been found. Science was proposed as a tool to overcome the limitations of traditional philosophy in its quest for truth through reasoning and logic, but it too is imperfect. Ultimately, we must recognize that science relies on our sensory organs and the technology that supplements them to define the principles and realities of nature within the ‘limits of human capability’. Furthermore, we must not forget that science is merely a process of constructing theories based on concepts humans can accept whenever new natural phenomena are discovered. Keeping this in mind will also greatly help us guard against blind faith in science.
