Photo by Johannes Plenio on Unsplash

Science is the branch of knowledge that studies the natural world and everything it encompasses… yadi yada. This definition has been engraved in anyone who’s passed elementary. Given its scope, how true is it that science explains everything?

Science contributed massively to human life.

There may have been debates about where life originated, the dividing argument between religious and scientific origin. Some believe an omniscient being has molded humans, while others think they’re a product of a single reproducing creature. But regardless of the rationalization of life’s origins, science has been and will always be the primary means of sustaining it.

Science is everywhere.

From medical standpoints to any attempt at explaining the world’s mechanisms, science has an ever-present contribution to life. With this, to the eyes of the logical, it will always precede any sentiment or suppositions. For instance, whenever a foreign or surreal experience happens, people can always expect someone to stand up and bring a logical explanation to the table. Case in point: in every paranormal experience, a bizarre and supposedly unexplainable phenomenon, a counterpart will always exist that breaks it down into a rational and scientific event.

It’s everywhere. But is it safe to believe that it explains everything?

The Theory Making Science All-Encompassing

In the book published by Dennis Joiner titled Let the Playing Field Level the Playing Field, the author provides an understanding of world situations through the language of science. He outlines a systematic view of the world, seizing its every function and mechanism to presume the universe follows a pattern that influences reality.

This belief closely follows the concept of scientific naturalism, which posits that science explains everything. It views this knowledge as the only reliable and all-encompassing means to explain everything, whether through the world’s supposed underlying patterns or systematic studies. This belief that the universe is made up of patterns and scientists can break down these to uncover and, perhaps, manipulate its influence backs up the conjecture that it explains everything.

However, it can be challenging to demonstrate or provide proof of scientific naturalism beyond unquestioned agreement. Hence, it can’t truly be considered a logical form of belief; all of this points back to the 50-50 confidence people have in the thesis that science explains everything.

Science Explains Everything: Fact or Fiction?

It may be the process that produces knowledge. But this doesn’t mean there is knowledge gathered behind everything. Although scientists have long been on a journey of assembling people’s curiosities and finding means to answer them, this doesn’t always lead to success.

Contrary to popular belief, there are still many things science can’t explain. Despite what rationale people follow, some arguments result in a never-ending cycle leading to insufficient explanation. Regardless of how advanced scientific technology has become or how people believe science explains everything, some matters simply can’t be examined or proven scientifically.

This is especially valid for truths people hold close to their hearts, those they don’t allow to be shaken despite the efforts of the people around them. By their nature, these beliefs can’t be proven or disproven, adding to the list of limitations science has. Although it has been broken into many branches – chemistry, physics, etc. – each created to explore the many aspects of life, this still isn’t enough to fully encompass everything there is about life and the world.

Between experiments, research studies, and many published books, the theory that science explains everything still leaves multiple holes to cover up.

And perhaps, this should be how it is.

Perhaps, science exists not to fully explain everything but to challenge man’s intellect. If it were indeed a be-all and end-all of knowledge, man would lose his intellectual motivation to explore their capacities and test theories. If anything, its limitations and fundamentally flawed nature shouldn’t make it unreliable but challenge people to seek more about matters surrounding them.