I posted a video on you-tube a while back in response to some scientific debates. I called the video “Science isn’t God” and I pretty much stated how everyone wrongfully treats science as the end all be all of knowledge. I mentioned that science tests only that which is observable and leaves out a good deal of information that would be obtainable through other methods. I did not lay out a definite argument for my claim and it was largely founded on my opinion. I knew about what I was trying to say but I could not formulate the idea enough to convey my meaning to my audience. I got a lot of flack for it and was ridiculed a bit; so I removed the video out of humility.
Today I ran across this quote:
As what we call natural science began to come into its own, the conception of science was gradually limited; a discipline had to meet more rigid criteria in order to be designated as a science. In particular, science now is restricted to the objects of sense experience, which must be verified by the “scientific method,” which employs observation and experimentation, following strict procedures of inductive logic…Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory of personality is unscientific, since no one can see or measure or test such entities as the id, the ego, and the superego. In an attempt to be regarded as scientific, disciplines dealing with humanity have tended to become behavioristic, basing their method, objects, and conclusions on what is observable, measurable, and testable, rather than on what can be known introspectively. All intellectual disciplines are expected to conform to this standard.” -Millard J. Erickson, Systematic Theology
The weakness of my argument before was that I really had no example to prove my point. However, I understand more of what I was getting at by considering Sigmund Freud’s work with the ego. The information he was collecting was not observable or measurable because it was all introspective. To conclude that this is not important because it is not observable or measurable is absurd. Every human being lives their life introspectively. All the feelings we feel and our mental state is completely subjective and are not acquired by any other means than self-observation.
This would not even be an issue if other disciplines received the same credibility as science, however they are deemed as inferior. So many social sciences are conforming to the scientific approach to seem more scientific and gain some credibility. That maybe why many social science majors receive a Bachelors of Arts instead of a Bachelors of Science.
My whole point is that there are many disciplines that are limited and much knowledge to be acquired in unobservable, metaphysical fields, like theology. We are foolish to ignore introspective research since it is the majority of our experience.