The dilemma of science

Science, what this word brings to mind. Everything we associate with it now. Everything that it assumes. Science, the thing we claim leading us into the future with a blazing torch of optimism. Whilst we once turned to religion, mysticism for miracles, we now turn to science. It explains the world, it might change our lives. It will one day prolong lives, we will conquer far corners of the universe. We will find a cure for aids. We will understand the distant past and the far future. But science has its assumptions, which we are perhaps more than happy to ignore. As long as science works. Its theories explain things fair enough. The technology it churns out works well. SO why should we pick at the nitty gritty little things?

But sometimes I wonder if science's view of the world can ever be as complete as it hopes to be. Can science seek to reveal the truth of the way things are if it conceals the very truth that science is imperfect and relies on so many assumptions. It is not that the scientific theories in themselves are problematic though they may be. It is the very enterprise of science. The intentions perhaps are noble, but of all the various faculties of learning about the world. It is science which remains the most blind to its own flaws and assumptions. Most historians know that the past is irretrievable, but do most scientists acknowledge the fact that the systems of science are ultimately story-telling that differs little from the study of history. We are all telling stories, just different versions. So why does science have so much more legitamacy than the other versions? As it has already been pointed out by critics, the very believe that science is fair, science is rational, science is supported only by factual evidence, is itself a narrative.

Even beyond this, science requires that any explanation true today, must fit the criteria of being true, yesterday, today and always. Because, science looks for fixed pattern that has to exist in nature. This makes science true, true to the extent that it is provable. This also necessarily means that science is selective learning in that things which are inexplicable or falls outside the patterns will be ignored. Moreover, science as of today, consists of patchwork of theories and observation which rests on the assumption that our whole natural, physical reality rests on a fixed system that doesn't change (even Heisenberg's uncertainty theory rests on constants and patterned observation), but there is no solid proof for such a believe. Other than the fact, that we believe this is how the world is. Science, in other words, looks at the world through a fixed lens that is less than perfect, yet proclaims itself as an objective search for an objective truth. The goal now is to search for the ultimate unified theory, the big answer to why the universe is the way it is. But unless, science acknowledges its own problems and its narrowness, it can never (in my opinon) achieve the wholistic understanding of the world it hopes for. But perhaps, the solution lies in the distant future when knowledge will no longer be segmented into arts,science etc... Maybe only then can we hope to see a truly unified theory?