What are we missing in the conventional wisdom that science is truth and non-science is pseudoscience?

This article questions the appropriateness of attempting to distinguish between science and non-science, warns against scientific universalism, and suggests that we shouldn’t trivialize the value of non-science. It also emphasizes that human needs and psychology are intimately intertwined with science.

 

Philosophy of science is difficult. Many people believe that a distinction should be made between science and non-science, and in order to clarify the boundaries, we need to delve into the nature of science. So, what is the purpose of trying to distinguish between science and non-science? This attempt is based on the belief that ‘what is scientific is reliable’. In other words, that what is not science is completely unreliable. Science has a long history of wielding more inflated authority than it really deserves in the name of being about truth. Some might even argue that science and religion are the same in form, as they deal with the same subject matter, but in the past and present, science has often gone beyond its intended purpose and has led to blind trust from people. That’s where pseudoscience comes in. When you present a scientific phenomenon with a decent sample size, statistical numbers, and a relevant scientific phenomenon, it naturally becomes more credible. Even if people think it’s ridiculous in the back of their minds, they still believe it.
This is why great philosophers of science, such as Karl Raimund Popper, have come up with criteria for distinguishing science from non-science. Popper seems to have thought deeply about this issue. His criterion of science is the highest intellectual standard that can come from the realm of the scientist’s intellect. This criterion leads to the conclusion that most things that are ambiguous between science and pseudoscience are pseudoscience. A typical example is Chinese medicine. Because it is premised on the theory of yin and yang, it is considered a “non-science” that cannot be disproved. But is it really unscientific? Anyone who has ever visited a Chinese medicine clinic is bound to question this conclusion. It’s certainly scientific and valid for a practitioner to look at a diagram of the human body and explain it. Furthermore, the efficacy of the herbs in your prescription is scientifically proven. In fact, many people actually benefit from them. The fact that the background of Chinese medicine is non-scientific and cannot be disproved scientifically does not mean that it is not a science.
The conventional wisdom of our time plays a big role in this question. The conventional wisdom of our time is that science is truth and non-science is pseudoscience. This can be dangerous. Nothing that humans have created is purely scientific. Humans also have psychological needs that they fulfill, so they synthesize what they know and create products. The same is true when it comes to creating and categorizing disciplines. Science is just one component of the discipline. Another reason why this myth is dangerous is that some people use science to deny things that were never part of science in the first place. A prime example is the never-ending debate between creationism and evolution. Creationists try to extend the realm of faith into science, while evolutionists use science to discredit creationist beliefs and faith as a cult. Neither side understands the nature of something with different roots and tries to undermine its value based on scientific criteria alone.
The same is true in the case of Chinese medicine. Chinese medicine is a discipline that includes both scientific and non-scientific explanations. It’s not just about yin and yang and the five elements, it’s about human reverence and humility for the world and the universe. The Yin Yang Five Elements Theory is the background of Chinese medicine not because it is actually the basic principle of governing the human body’s qi, but because the ancestors of the East were convinced of the fact that the human body comes from nature and emphasized it. Without looking into the psychology and desires of human beings, we cannot undermine the value of Chinese medicine because it is a non-science that cannot be disproved. The value of Christian beliefs cannot be undermined because creationism is not disprovable.
Science can be a component of many disciplines, and in some cases it can play a central role. But that doesn’t mean that other things are excluded from explaining things. Other factors also play a role. Take physics for example. Physics analyzes patterns in natural phenomena and uses them as principles of nature. But who determines the direction of physics? Humans. Humans use science to build rockets, build ships, and build weapons, and human psychology and desires come into play in the process. Scientific outputs are no longer just for academia, but have an impact on society and people. While patterns in nature are always present, the science we utilize is variable and resilient. It’s not science that drives it, but human needs.
In particular, the intermediate step that brings science to life is engineering. It can also be used interchangeably with “technology,” although technically it means something else. Science exists as it is, but people try to materialize it through engineering and technology. In doing so, they mistake science for a tool. At the same time, trust in non-science decreases.
Immanuel Kant said that humans should be treated as ends, not means. The same is true for science. Technology is a means, but science as a discipline should be treated as an end. Using science as a weapon to unconditionally vilify non-science undermines the value of the discipline. Science is already doing its job because it is the truth as it is. Furthermore, rejecting non-science is to turn a blind eye to human needs and the mysteries of nature. Humans have become more arrogant than ever before, and the more we learn, the greater our fear of disrupting the existing world. As a result, we may be projecting a false sense of arrogance. Those who recognize the nature of science should look at the world through a more humble lens, lest they miss things that are more important than science.