A Critique of Science: How Incoherent Leaders Purged Metaphysics of Mind and God

Behind the seemingly simple title "The Critique of Science," it aims to address one of the most vital issues that has largely been neglected in regard to science. Science has been without any critique seen in other domains like movie or music. And unlike most other parts of society, science is usually excluded from even the media’s attention given that it usually endorses virtually everything that scientists, both as individuals and as a discipline, say. Aronowitz (1996) has pointed out the media’s repudiation of its role. An inevitable consequence of the absence of intellectual watchdog may be that flaws, errors, and blind spots are neither corrected nor even recognized. The problem is that people in general are intimidated by the mystique of science. Removing the aura will allow us to see what I call the “Hyde side” of science. An unfortunate irony is that science has developed a sophisticated system that allows its practitioners to justify their intolerance and discriminatory practices against those who do not conform to the dominant viewpoints. Historical, sociological, and psychological analysis offer an explanation how scientists developed the maladaptive culture that is unjust and counterproductive.

One of the recurring themes of this essay is that the human propensity to follow dysfunctional and incoherent leaders. Just as society could be taken over by the deranged minds like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, science can also be hijacked by emotional and dubious thinkers with a knack for persuasion and self-promotion like Skinner, Watson, Huxley, etc. It is as if society becomes an extension of someone’s anxiety and preoccupation and begins to see the world through the deranged person’s lens.

One might think that scientists who take pride in their emphasis on empirical evidence and logical reasoning would not fall into such shortcomings. However, my historical investigation will show that scientists are human. If anything, scientists may seem to find it harder to admit their mistake and undertake the necessary corrections than do politicians or laypersons. In this sense, science is close to being correction-resistant rather than “self-corrective” especially when it comes to major issues.

The very source of collective failure of scientists is the fundamental nature of human’s decision-making process that is highly fragile and can crack under even a very slight degree of pressure. The crux of my argument is that human impulses play a powerful role in hijacking minds so that we can be led to embrace, over time, viewpoints that are dysfunctional, maladaptive, extremist and fundamentalist. Yes, even in science. I was able to identify the impulses because I recognize them in myself. I propose the general checklist, analogous to a pilot checklist described by Gawande to fortify the delicate system of decision-making process. My sincere hope is that readers will recognize that their own impulses are no different from those experienced by scientists and others so that they can make better decisions and be better prepared for any possible mishaps whether they originate from oneself or from others.

The main victim of science’s culture of intolerance and discrimination is metaphysics of mind and supernatural agency (i.e., God). Regardless of one’s perspective on the subject, it may well be one of the most important and profound issues intellectually and spiritually for most people: How did we get here? What is the meaning of life? What happens when we die? The problem of science in dealing with such crucial issues is this: One of modern science’s main tenets is the “purge” of metaphysics as argued by Betty Smocovitis. This stance, which is certainly not based on empirical evidence or even thoughtful examination, bears a remarkable resemblance to demagoguery. For those who have been in conflict regarding the issue of God because science’s explanation is so intellectually and spiritually unsatisfying, this book may provide some relief from the overwhelming pressure of science’s mystique and dogma. Simply put, the way science attained and maintained its atheistic view is unfair and untrustworthy to say the least.

This essay examines the self-exempted examiner without any reservation or restraint. Because it is not just a science issue but a human issue, I made an effort to make it accessible to most people by presenting it in readily understandable terms and concepts and as straightforwardly as possible by the use of comparisons and metaphors.