Scientific “proof” is a myth: the limitations of science and the medical paradigm (1)

There was an article published back in 2014 by Dr. David Stewart, who so eloquently articulated the limitations of the scientific method, and the short-comings of the medical paradigm.

Since 2020 we are witnessing an unparalleled phenomenon in medicine where religious beliefs are passed off as “science,” while indoctrination of ideas is actually the goal of the Globalist medical tyranny programs.

Most of the public is falling for this indoctrination propaganda passed off as “science,” so Dr. Stewart’s words are more needed today than perhaps ever before.

The Limits of Science

by Dr. David Stewart

Science has lifted us from the ignorance of the Dark Ages into the understandings we hold today. It has increased our standards of living, lengthened our life spans, and enriched our lives in every way. Music, the arts, our governments, our social customs, our religious beliefs, our educational institutions, our recreations, our modes of travel, our means of communicating, our working, our eating, our sleeping – all aspects of our culture have been transformed by the touch of technology.

It is little wonder, then, that we have become conditioned to look to science for the solutions of all our problems and for the answers to life’s questions. But science, powerful as it is, is a false god. Awed by the spectacular material advancements science has brought us, we have come to expect more of science than it is capable of delivering. Many persons, not recognizing the limitations of science, stand in expectation of results that will never come. Science does not have all the solutions. It does not have all the answers. It never has and it never will.

The purpose of this [article] is to clearly present science for what it is – no more and no less. Many answers can be obtained by the scientific method, but there are many more that cannot.

It is not my intent to destroy your faith in science. As a lifetime professional scientist myself, I am duly respectful of its potential. I am also aware of its limitations.

When it comes to consideration of life in its fullness, these limitations are very great. Therefore, while I don’t want to destroy your faith in science, I do want to disturb it and to encourage you to question its validity as an approach to living.

While the essence of science is characterized by its inherent lack of mysticism, to the non-scientist it often bears a veil of the mystical.

One of the most common persuasive devices of the advertiser is to cloak its advocacy in the jargon of science: “If it sounds scientific, it must be right,” so goes the unspoken implication. And people buy it.

It is my hope that this writing will serve to demystify science for those unfamiliar with its inner workings. It is not in our best interest, as human beings, to hold science in a degree of esteem that exceeds its capabilities. Science is not the only approach of inquiry into the nature of life. In fact, it is an approach that fails in most of life’s situations.

While it has great capabilities, it can only do so much and no more. This [article] will assist you in obtaining a realistic expectation of science, because without a realistic expectation you will not be able to rely upon it when appropriate and you will be disappointed when it fails.

Science may be a high-speed aircraft in some ways, but an airplane cannot get you everywhere. If you want to walk about your home, visit a neighbor, enjoy a stroll through the woods, climb the heights of a mountain, fish in your favorite stream, or travel to places without airports, you cannot do it with an aircraft. Modes of locomotion is necessary to be appropriate to the circumstances. Likewise, modes of inquiry is necessary to be appropriate to the subject matter. In the case of the scientific mode of inquiry, it is inappropriate to most of life’s important questions. For example, when someone smiles at you, do you need a blood test and a urinalysis to appreciate why they smiled at you? Of course not. You simply look them in the eyes with an open heart and you know.

In order to clearly understand the limitations of science, one is necessary to first have a clear picture of what science is. Interestingly enough, there is a large fraction of scientists who do not have an accurate and complete picture of the boundaries of science.

This might sound hard to believe, but it is true. It is entirely possible to practice science to a high level of success in obtaining useful, valid results, while at the same time never being fully aware of its limits. In an analogous way, it is entirely possible, if not common, for doctors to practice medicine without being aware of its limits. In fact, it is not at all uncommon for people to confuse medicine with science. And neither is it unusual for doctors to confuse science with technology.

The practice of medicine, while it may be partially described as “applied technology,” is not a science. While medicine bases some of its practices on scientifically derived data, the practice of medicine is not, itself, a science. Medicine is a discipline of opinion where accepted standards of practice are determined by a consensus of the majority, not by the scientific method.

The reason the limits of science are not widely recognized and understood lies in our educational systems, which train scientists and health care providers in how to exercise the methods of science and apply their results, but do not encourage a questioning of the fundamental assumptions behind the methods themselves.

The purpose of medical training is unquestioning indoctrination, not cognitive education. It is to promote, protect, and apply the prevailing paradigm – not to question it.

The Limits of Science in a Nutshell

The limits of science can be condensed into the following nineteen statements:

1. Science explains nothing; it can only describe.
2. Science proves nothing; it can only verify or disprove.
3. Science cannot deal directly with subjective experience; it can only deal with the objective.
4. “Scientific” does not necessarily mean right, valid, or best; it only means that a certain method was followed.
5. “Objective” does not necessarily mean right, valid or best; it only means that observations are independent of the observer and can be measured scientifically.
6. “Subjective” does not mean invalid or irrelevant; it only means that observations are dependent upon the observer and cannot be measured scientifically.
7. Most of the events we experience and value in life are subjective and are, therefore, beyond science.
8. Belief in science is an act of faith and is, in itself, a choice made subjectively and personally, not scientifically.
9. Science is limited by time; tomorrow’s research cannot help us today and yesterday’s events cannot be directly observed.
10. Science is limited in space in the infinite sense; there will always remain portions of the universe beyond its reach because of distance to the furthest reaches of intergalactic space.
11. Science is limited in space in the infinitesimal sense; there will always remain portions of the universe beyond its reach within the subspace and the subparticles of atoms.
12. Science is limited in its ability to observe natural living processes because the effect of the observer modifies, if not halts, the process.
13. Science is limited by its instruments and apparati of observation. It can only study that which its apparati are designed to observe or detect.
14. Science is limited by experimental error; its results can be no better than the reliability of its data.
15. Science is limited by human bias in the application of the scientific method itself.
16. Science is limited by human bias in the choices of topics upon which the method is applied.
17. Science is limited in its impact upon society in that people, and even professionals, generally do not follow scientific facts unless the facts agree with their feelings and/or preheld beliefs.
18. The scientific method is not the only valid method of inquiry into the nature of things – there are others, and when it comes to practical inquiry into the subjective, other methods is necessary to be used because, in such experiences, science fails.
19. Science (as practiced today) is limited by the a priori assumption that there is no willful, conscious, participating God within the processes studied by science. Hence, God is not a factor to be considered.

What is Science?

Science, as discussed in this section, is an intellectual left-brain process dependent upon the five physical senses. This is the predominant science as defined and practiced today. We call it “materialistic science.”

There is also another definition of science that is intuitive and right-brained that does not depend upon the five physical senses. But in this discussion, we are referring to science as the vast majority of scientists currently understand it and practice it. Science is an approach to the study of the universe around us – both living and inanimate. It is only one of several approaches.

The purpose of science is to discover and describe the details of the universe. It does not attempt to explain, in an ultimate sense, why things are the way they are. Science merely observes and describes.

For example, Newton’s Second Law states that force (F) is equal to mass (m) times acceleration (a). Or in the form of an equation: F = m*a. The law does not explain why force, mass, and acceleration are so related. It merely states that between these three quantities, that is the way it is. It is only a description of what scientific observations have seen time and time again.

Newton’s observation (stated as his second law) is no different than stating that “the average length of human pregnancies is nine months.” If you ask a medical scientist why pregnancies last this long, they may reply, “Because this is how long it takes the fetus to develop into a stage where it is able to live outside the womb and yet is not too large to pass through the birth canal.”

But this is not really “why” in an ultimate sense. To really answer the question of “why?” one would have to explain why fetal development progresses at the rate that it does. A medical scientist might be tempted to answer this by going into the chemistry and embryology of fetal processes and how these occur in a certain sequence over a certain period resulting in a mean gestation period of nine months. But here, again, one would merely have explained “how” the growth rates resulted, not “why.” At this point we could ask, “Why do these chemical and biological processes proceed at the rates and in the manners in which they do?” Aiming to track down an ultimate “why” in this manner is endless. This is the reason that science does not concern itself with such considerations.

In the field of aromatherapy and essential oils, one could state as a scientific fact, derived from the data of many scientific analyses, that marjoram oil (Origanum marjorana) generally contains 14-21% phenols, 28-60% monoterpenes, and 2-5% sesquiterpenes.

If you asked a biochemist why marjoram contains these types of compounds in these proportions, he or she may attempt to reply that it is due to its genetics as a member of the mint family (Lamiaceae) and because of its inbred habits of taking certain minerals from the air, water, and soil to create compounds in a certain manner in response to its environmental and nutritional needs, etc., etc.

Thus, one might describe how marjoram makes the oils it makes. But none of these explanations would answer why marjoram behaves like marjoram to produce the oils it produces. “Why” is not a question that left-brain science can ever address to obtain an ultimate and final answer.

Therefore, one of the principle features that distinguishes science from other approaches to life’s problems is the problems to which science limits itself. In other words, science is concerned only with “what, when, and how.”

When we ask, “Why?”, and require an ultimate answer, we have left traditional science and have entered realms that are more properly relegated to philosophy, religion, intuition, and personal subjective judgment.

Consequently, the first limitation of science is that it does not deal with absolutes. It does not deal with “truth.” It deals with facts, as perceived, but not with absolute truth. Hence, the first hope is necessary we give up for the scientific method is that it will lead us to absolute answers about life and the universe. It cannot.

In addition to being restricted only to certain questions, science is further restricted by the approach it takes to finding answers to those questions. This approach is called the “scientific method.” We shall describe this a bit later.

First, let us further pursue the degree to which science is capable of dealing with “truth.” In particular, let us explore the real meaning of the phrase, “scientific proof.”

What is Proof?

Absolute proof is strictly the domain of logicians. In mathematics, for example, once a theorem is proven it is proven for all time and all circumstances. Mathematical proof is absolute. Mathematics, however, is not science. This is a point about which many are confused. Mathematics is a language used by science, but is not itself a science. Mathematical proof and scientific proof are not the same aspect at all. To see this point more clearly, consider the Pythagorean Theorem – a mathematical proof that relates the lengths of the sides (a and b) of a right triangle to the length of its hypotenuse (c). (See the figure bellow)

This theorem was proven thousands of years ago once and for all time. We needn’t worry that tomorrow a right triangle may be discovered that disproves the theorem. Neither should we be concerned that the theorem was proven in Greece and, therefore, may or may not apply to the United States or to astronauts on another planet. Proof of the Pythagorean Theorem is absolute – valid for all times and places. In mathematics, once proven is always proven. This is not so in science.

The reason that mathematicians can prove their theorems absolutely is because their universe of mathematics is a creation of human consciousness. The elements of this universe (numbers, functions, vectors, etc.) were all conceived and defined by mathematicians themselves.

Therefore, since they created their own universe and, in principle, have knowledge of all of its parts, when they prove a theorem they are assured that the proof will stand for all time and in all places, because in making the proof they were able to consider their entire universe whose complete past, present, and future they know.

To think of it another way, mathematics, as are all systems of logic, is similar to a game with certain elements and rules devised by somebody in an arbitrary, but definite and orderly fashion. Once the game is established, the elements and the rules are not modified. If you modify anything, you have a different game.

When you prove a mathematical theorem you are merely playing the game as defined by the system of mathematics in which you are engaged. By agreement with other mathematicians, is necessary for you to make your proof using only the elements and rules laid down for the particular mathematical system in which you are working. If you modify the rules then you are not playing the game – you are inventing a new game or a new system of mathematics with different conditions.

Take baseball, for example. The elements of the game are the ball, the bat, the bases, the field, and the players. Among the established rules is that three outs constitute the end of a team’s time up to bat for that inning.

Now this is a completely arbitrary rule. It could have been decided that two outs would do it, or five, or seven, but for some reason, three was chosen. If we want to make it something different, then we cannot call it baseball. In any case, once the game begins, the rules remain fixed.

In a mathematical sense, you could prove that if one member of your team strikes out, another pops a fly to shortstop, and a third is thrown out on first, your team is finished batting for that inning. This proof would be absolute because it is based upon a finite set of elements and rules that were invented by man. Even if afterwards someone changes the rules and elements so that three outs no longer retires the side up to bat, they will have only changed the game to something else. They will not have affected the absoluteness of your former proof since now, in effect, they are talking about a different game than the one in which you made your proof.

Just as there are many kinds of games, there are many systems of mathematics. In Euclidian Geometry the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. This follows from the manner in which the elements and rules of Euclidian Geometry are defined.

In some other systems of geometry the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line. This does not disprove the Euclidian notion any more than citing the case of bowling, where the high score wins, can be used to disprove that the low score wins in golf.

The two systems of geometry are entirely different games. All they have in common is that both were fashioned by the human conscience.

What is Scientific Proof?

Scientific proof is not really proof at all, in the mathematical sense, but is either verification or disproof. Since scientists deal with a universe that is not of their own creation, they cannot prove their laws absolutely as can mathematicians.

Although scientists use the term “scientific proof,” and I may use it in this book, what we really mean is that a particular hypothesis has been verified or disproved. We don’t mean “proof” in the mathematical sense. Scientists can never know for a certainty that the laws seemingly in effect today were always so or that they will be in effect at all future times. Neither can they know that their laws, as observed to date, within the limits of current observations, will continue to be upheld by future observations.

That is to say, just because Newton’s laws have been repeatedly verified during the last two centuries doesn’t mean they functioned, as we observe them today, at all times in the geologic past or during the days of creation when God spoke the universe into existence.

Is the Speed of Light a Constant?

Consider the speed of light in a vacuum – 186,280 miles per second or 300,000 km/sec. Twentieth-century physicists consider it to be an invariable constant of the universe. But is it? Do we really know that the speed of light was the same five-thousand or five-million years ago? Will it remain constant for all time into the future?

Some scientists, such as Barry Setterfield (A Brief History of c – 1987), say the speed of light used to be much faster and is gradually slowing down. Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, can be used to deduce this conclusion. Solving for c (the speed of light), we find that it equals the square-root of the energy of the universe (E) over the mass (m).

If we assume that no additional energy (E) or mass (m) is being fed into the physical universe and if our observations and conclusions about the ongoing transformation of energy into mass throughout the universe is correct, then the amount of total energy in the universe (E) is continually diminishing while the total mass (m) is increasing causing the ratio E/m to get smaller and smaller in time, thus causing the speed of light to also gradually get slower and slower over the centuries.

Of course, we made a few assumptions in drawing this conclusion which may turn out to be invalid. Even so, it does illustrate a point, that aspects we consider constant and factual today may not always have been so.

Science Cannot Directly Observe the Past

Science can only directly observe the present. We can extrapolate into the future and deduce conclusions about the past, but only the present is directly within the grasp of scientific observation.

Geologists deduce that dinosaurs once thundered across the earth’s surface, but no scientist has ever seen one alive. What we know of them we can only deduce from their remains.

Science is Limited by Space

Science is also limited in its contact with space. The universe in which we live is limitless in two opposing directions – expansively outward into the farthest reaches of unplumbed space and infinitesimally inward into the subspace of the atoms.

Since absolute proof in the physical universe would require knowledge of every cubic centimeter of matter, space and energy, and since humans have no such knowledge of their universe (as mathematicians do of theirs) – absolute proofs of physical phenomena are impossible for human scientists.

If you think about it, comprehension of every speck of matter and every corner of space in the created universe is tantamount to the definitions for “omnipresence” and “omniscience” – neither of which are human attributes. In most religions, however, these are attributes of the divine. What this implies is that if you seek absolute answers about the manifested universe, they cannot be found by materialistic science. A quest for absolute truth always leads beyond science and leads into matters which are spiritual and inaccessible to our logical left brains.

The point is that scientists can never know all the elements and rules of their universe because not only did they not create it, at least a portion of it will always remain beyond them in time and/or space – where the term “space” is used here to designate the limitlessness of both the inner and the outer universes. Unlike mathematics, the tenets of science are forever in jeopardy of ambush by a new set of facts.

How many ideas formerly considered scientifically sound are now considered disproven? How many times has medical science reversed itself? How much of present-day medical practice, deemed scientific and beneficial today, will, in a few years, be demonstrated unscientific and harmful?

For all we know, science may eventually invalidate them all.

Bleeding patients with leeches as a routine medical cure-all procedure sounds absurd to us now, but during the nineteenth century it was considered good medical practice. Within the framework of the scientific understanding of the time, it seemed most reasonable.

Scientific laws describe only what we see here and now within the limits of our history and of our restricted vision. Science, at best, can only provide us with a set of likely probabilities based upon and limited by current data. No matter how much data has been accumulated on growing basil or lavender over decades, or even centuries, we will never be able to predict the exact chemical composition of the next batch of essential oil harvested for a given field or from any field. Some sciences can offer more certainty than others. Physics and chemistry are among the more certain sciences.

Medical and biological science, by contrast, are among those whose probabilities are among the least certain because of the unimaginable complexity of life processes, their unknown interactions with the human conscience and spirit, and the impossibility of objective and complete measurement.

Read the second part of the article

 

yogaesoteric
January 28, 2022

 

Also available in: Română