Is Science The Only True Form of Knowledge?

This paper was originally written for a course in apologetics which I am pursuing at Biola University.



Science is a wonderful pursuit and it is an understatement to say that it has provided mankind with many great and helpful achievements and benefits. But sometimes the subject of science is presented in such a way that a false understanding is given. The false understanding is that science alone provides all knowledge, or, at least, all true knowledge of importance or value.

It’s helpful for us to know that we do not have to negate the significant achievements of science in order to realize that there is important knowledge outside of science.

I present to you a few examples of knowledge that are not provided to us by science, in fact, these forms of knowledge are assumed to be true in order to pursue science. The important understanding here is that science does not prove these examples of knowledge to be true, it must assume that they are true as a starting point.

1) Science assumes that an orderly world exists. Scientific experiments are conducted based upon observable, repeatable tests. The assumption that science makes, but does not prove, is that the orderly condition of the physical world exists in such a way that these experimental findings will always hold true when performed under the same conditions. We could say it like this: The scientist assumes that the physical world will work in a consistent and orderly way, thus assuring the continued reliability of his or her findings.

But who says that this consistent, orderly world will continue tomorrow the way it always has in the past?

You say, “Well, we just know it will. It always has in the past and, therefore, we assume that it always will in the future.”

Yes, exactly. We make that assumption. And, so far, we have found that it basically holds. That’s why we can and do rely so heavily on it. But that is not proof that it will continue, in fact, if you think about it, our trust in the physical world’s consistent orderly workings is something very much like faith.

Again, this is not something which science knows or proves, it is assumed in order for scientific investigation to proceed.

2) Science assumes that logic works. We all rely, every day, on the validity of logic. We take for granted that it works because, much like our experience of an orderly physical world, our consistent experience is that, indeed, logic works and it comports with reality.

One of the fundamental laws of logic is the law of noncontradiction. The law of noncontradiction can be stated like this: “For any property F, nothing can be both F and not-F at the same time and in the same way.” (DeWeese and Moreland, Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult)

All of us have experienced firsthand the truth of the law of noncontradiction. We find that it works, in fact, it always works. Scientists live in the same world as all the rest of us and they, too, assume that the laws of logic work. They proceed with the assumption of the validity of logic in order to engage in their pursuits.

But the important point is that the findings of science do not prove the laws of logic, rather, they assume the laws of logic, in advance, in order to proceed.

3) Truths of morality are non-scientific, they are accepted truths which are not provided to us through the scientific method. Moral truths present us with the concept of “ought”. In other words, our moral conscience tells us that there are things we ought to do or we ought not do.

We can especially perceive the reality of the moral ought when we are personally wronged. Consider a scenario like this:

“Hey, that guy walked up and took my wallet for no reason, I don’t even know him!”

“So, what’s the problem with that?”

“What do you mean, what’s the problem? He’s not allowed to do that. It’s wrong.”

Why is this wrong? Says who? Where does this moral “ought” come from? Why do we experience it? Why can’t he take your wallet if he’s bigger and stronger and he wants to?

The answer is that we all know this is wrong. We just simply know it. A child with no significant religious or moral training knows it.

But our question is, why? The explanations for morality from evolutionary scientists have been inadequate.

A right thinking person will accept the reality of moral absolutes. But these truths are not discovered or explained by science. It is, yet, another form of knowledge that science cannot provide to us or explain for us.

Again, we can and we do appreciate and acknowledge the great importance of science and recognize the good it has done and the tremendous ways that it has benefited us. At the same time, it does not diminish science to say that there are forms of knowledge which science cannot tell us about. It is simply an acknowledgement that there are other true, valid, important forms of knowledge in addition to what is provided by science.

Daniel L. Marler
Oak Lawn, IL