The same people and proponents of modern science support and study certain theories as “truth” when actually dug deeper, we find it is built upon “beliefs” and “assumptions”. For example, the big bang theory is a popular theory among the scientific world accepted widely and studied as truth in many schools across the world. However this theory is not conclusive and decisive in explaining the origin of the universe. The theory claims that our universe sprang into existence as “singularity” around 13.7 billion years ago. In other words, the universe expanded from one singular point of enormous density and temperature. The theory, however, does not explain the origin of singularity or what it is or where it came from. According to the methods of scientific research “The necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories” (Intro to the Scientific Method, University of Rochester,NY). Big Bang theory clearly does not fit the above definition of scientific theories simply because the concept of “singularity” is unexplainable. But still the scientific world consider as the most popular theories among other theories on the origin of the universe. We can use the same logic for Darwin’s theory and other theories that have not been conclusively tested. Keep in mind, these theories do have various experimental evidences and proofs, however, it is not accepted as facts because we do not have conclusive evidences explaining the “full theory”. In other words, there are “building” and “progressive” evidences towards explaining the theories. If we stick to the definition of true scientific knowledge, these theories are nothing but an ambitious, optimistic and phantasmagoric mental speculative phenomenon cooked up and agreed upon by the highest echelon of the scientific community. We do not disagree that there is no evidence but there is not enough evidence to prove theory into fact. Let us put it this way, the amount of evidence we have for these theories today is not enough to hang a man for murder.
Here is another unsolvable mystery in the field of mathematics. “In the field of mathematics, which underlies all other branches of Science, the imaginary number "i," (the square root of minus one) is essential for most complex theoretical calculations. However this "imaginary" number cannot be proven by experimentation. It is also not possible to prove by experimentation the Third Law of Thermodynamics or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Yet these principles are absolutely essential for modern scientific theories” (gosai.com website)”
In the field of statistics, when we sample a population, we “believe” the sample represents the population (there is no definite way to prove that), we “assume” that for a given population distribution with a mean and variance, the sampling distribution with sample size (greater than 30) approaches a normal distribution (even if the population is not normal- in the real world the population is never normal). In other words, as the size of the sample increases, using the normal distribution curve, we can predict the population. This is called the central limit theorem and this is the fundamental concept in the field of statistics. The problem here is our main purpose of statistics is to predict the population (how then would we know its mean and variance), hence for calculating certain important values (such as standard error), we assume the mean and variance of the sample instead of the population mean and variance of the population in the “assumption” that the sampling distribution is a normal curve (normal curve is a curve with equal probabilities underneath the curve).
So we can say with complete confidence that modern science is not scientific after all. In other words, modern science operates on so many premises and assumptions. I will dare say this is true for absolutely all scientific disciplines in modern education. Hence we inexplicably come to the point called “faith”.
I guess my overall point is, if we dig deeper, there is no possible way to conclusively use scientific methods to predict or represent the actual truth. The field of mathematics and statistics is the foundation for all other fields, and both of them have assumptions that can NEVER be verified experimentally. Hence what we have is a set of principles that “closely” (the degree of closeness depends on the interpreter of the data) represents the truth. This is the TRUE science that is out there today. Yet we are ready to bet our lives on these set of loose principles (what we call modern science). We buy medicines thinking it will cure our disease, we get into a car thinking the airbags will protect us in the right time, we hit the brakes thinking the car will stop, we get into an elevator thinking it will go against gravity and take us to the top floor, we flush the toilet thinking our droppings will never be seen again….we believe, believe, and believe that the system will work. We believe the experts using their money, technology and brain power would have created a fool-proof system that “works”. But in reality not everyone is protected by airbags, not everyone is cured from the same pill, and not all toilets flush. Yet, we somehow think the “worse” will not happen to us. Do we ever think why the airbag is not working, why the pill is not working or why the toilet is not flushing…in other words if we are honest, we can get the answer. The science that created this system is not perfect as it is working on its own “belief system” and “assumptions” and since it is humanly impossible to test every product and every experimental subject, we are forced to assume certain things and the whole field of science is running on these “belief systems”. Therefore what we get is a compromised and generalized set of loosely arranged inter-relating “scientific” principles that “closely” represent the actual truth. That is why we have, today, crazy theories such as life coming from chemicals and the universe created by chance, while we all know through “common sense” and daily experience that no life has come from inert chemical and nothing creative can be accidental. If this is not “belief” then what is?
Is there “hard fact” that YOUR car airbag will protect you?