Science and Skydiving

     Many would agree that Truth is a touchy subject. In fact I think it is near the top of the list for touchy subjects. However, if I am going to find truth anywhere, I will find it in Science. Surely we can rely on Science as an ultimate informant of Truth… Right?

     After conversation with my super smart scientific friend (Greg Webber), on the subjects of Truth and science, I have discovered that I strongly believe in the scientific method. According to the Philosophy Professor, Alexander Moseley, the scientific method is described as “one of testing a theory by experimentation and being able to replicate that experiment and get the same results; [but] conclusions drawn are tentative …” We use science every day in most everything we do. For example, I pour coffee into my mug assuming that it will land in my mug and not fly up into my face. I know this to be true of gravity; however I cannot scientifically prove that it will never fly into my face. Moseley continues; “Nonetheless, the immense quantity of work that has been based on controlled and repeatable experiments builds up to an impressive edifice-not one that is dogmatic though, for the scientific method demands a healthy scepticism to ensure that what is understood today is always up for revision tomorrow”. That being said, Scientists can never come to final conclusions, they can however, come to probability. According to Greg, the knowledge of science works in a circular motion that spirals towards a centre, but never fully arrives at the centre (the centre being Truth).

IT GETS MORE COMPLICATED…

     Greg explained to me that Scientific evidence is based on Empiricism + Rationalism. Well, According to Moseley’s “A to Z of Philosophy”, “The empiricist rejects any possibility of innate knowledge- all knowledge that we gain is based on what we perceive with our senses so what our minds are working with when we make scientific conjectures; create imaginative stories and comprehend what is around us, and is gained absolutely from the senses” and the Rationalist says, “I can be uncertain of the validity of my senses, I may be fooled by what they offer, but I can never doubt that I am thinking. Thus the initiating premise becomes the principle of the workings of the mind: given that I know that I think, my duty, as a rationalist, is then to proceed logically, maintaining a grip on the terms that I use and the connections between them, then a system of thought may be deduced”. So, the path to Truth can begin with Science and Philosophy, however it will not end with either because neither discourses will allow it.

DO NOT WORRY, THERE IS STILL HOPE!

     I will not lie, all this made me even more confused than ever. While referring to all I learned from Greg to my Father, he suggested that in order to come to Truth, one must not just dance around it in a circular motion (as Science and Philosophy allow). In order to grasp it, you must become intimate with what this “Truth” says about itself. However, if you never try to become intimate with any Truth claims, you will never ever get closer to Truth. If you only stick with what Science and philosophy permit then you will remain seriously limited to attaining any “Truth”. Consider this: You are in an airplane that is plummeting to the ground. You see others jumping off the plane with parachutes, but you do not know for sure that your parachute will open or that you will land safely. If you stay on the plane you will continue falling and eventually you will die. Discussing with others the probability of your parachutes trustworthiness is a good idea. It’s also a good idea to ask a little bit about how the parachute works. Ultimately though, you will have to choose whether you will place your faith in your parachute, or continue questioning its reliability or just ignore the whole situation altogether. So, what will you do? Will you follow the path of Science and Philosophy and then just throw in the towel when they have nothing left to offer?

-Rachel S.