There Must Be An Observable World in Science
Apparently, we frequently regard science as a sort of a product of a long, complicated experiment in laboratory keenly done by scientists. By the way, science is not only a product of that, but especially also an intellectual process to have access to understanding the real(ity). As such complicated processes being in need of keen and rigid action in yielding science as product we commonly consider, all scientists are straightforwardly guided either explicitly or implicitly by the common canon of some typical components of its method.
Explicitly, such typical components of method in science are such as observation, calculation, verification, falsification, generalisation, prediction, and so on. Observation is certainly one of the significant steps to being able to process and undergo an experiment. Hence, scientists, whether they like or not, have basically to anchor a hugely essential presupposition on an observable world. We should have been able to distinguish our daily world from “the observable world” typical of science field.
The observable world becomes one basic reality to grip in order to guide the process of a scientific experiment. Absolutely, the point of departure in science is not confined by solely the observable world, making them blind to make a progess or making them dogmatic to do revolutionary results. Scientists in doing experiment are undeniably pushed by “the known world”, so that they can still make an inovation, a discovery, or an invention in their researches.
The known world, different from the observable world, is a widely-disclosed reality which can be understood by mind, not perceived or thought of merely by “rationale”. Although setting out from the known world, scientists must not arbitrarily or haphazardly leave their very place, that is the observable world. Consequently, they cannot state baloney due to the fact that that means they leave the observable world. I mean they are unavoidably snared within “the physical or tangible world” here.
Scientists are none other than empiricists. This does not mean that scientists are not capable of doing beyond that, but even the empiricism itself makes the act of scientific experiment possible. Instead, such strict empiricism enables scientists to observe the known world. That being so, the known world must be perceivable in front of our sensory tools.
Does that mean that science is limited? In one hand, yes, it is, while in the other hand, no, it is not. As a matter of fact, the limitation of science itself is its uniqueness which precisely we are proud of and count on. The typicality of science is its limiation of being beyond the observable world. Otherwise, science does not have a uniqueness to be different from other fields or disciplines. However, when science once commences trying to exceed its boundaries, we have to infer that that is not a scientific exposition, but a sort of a philosophical reflection.
We cannot encounter “meaning” within science. It is impossible for science to reveal “meaning” or divulge existential dimension of the life of human beings. Science merely takes one to an edge of wide sea, so that science as both a process and a product will be invalid when trying to be passing through or diving such vast sea. In other words, science will be illegitimate when claiming that it can go across seas in which indeed there is not any properly scientific boat or ship to cross such large waves in the middle of the sea.
Once more, I do not want to distract us to infer that the limitation of science is its very explicit lack, but vice versa, that its lack is its advantage over keeping being consistent in and keen on only observing an observable world. It is worthy enough noting that with no such an observable world, science is nothing.[]