"Trying to explain everything in terms of science","What is inconsistent with science is superstition" and "Science is another form of religion"-these three statements, ostensibly different views on science, actually share a common misunderstanding: They all believe that science is a complete system that can explain everything. Only the first agrees with this, the second uses it as a basis for judgment, and the third is critical.
Neither of them is accurate because science has set its own boundaries since its inception. It is not limited externally, but by the methods it uses.
1. What is science
Science is not a fixed set of knowledge, but a set of actionable methods. It includes: observation, hypothesis, experiment, verification, and correction. It only deals with observable phenomena, accepts only testable explanations, and retains only conclusions that can be confirmed through repeated experiments.
This means that science excluded three types of things from the beginning:
Unobservable-you can't experimentally test whether it exists, or confirm whether it is working through observation.
Non-repeatable-it occurred only once, or the conditions were not completely consistent each time and could not be verified by repeated experiments.
Untestable-although it can be proposed, there is no way to judge whether it holds true.
This is not a "flaw" of science, but a prerequisite for its establishment. If science attempts to deal with things that are unobservable, unrepeatable, and untestable, it is no longer science.
2."Trying to explain everything with science"
This sentence is a scientific expression, not a scientific expression. Science itself does not claim to be able to explain everything. It only points out that the part that can be explained at present ends here, and the part that cannot be explained will be put aside for the time being, waiting for new methods or new observations to emerge before deciding whether to include it.
Trying to explain everything with science elevates science from a method to a worldview. In this worldview, science is the only effective source of knowledge, and all phenomena can ultimately be reduced to physical, chemical, and biological processes. This reductionism is valid within the scope of physics and chemistry, but once it is extended to areas such as conscious experience, meaning judgments, and value choices, it begins to try to explain objects that it cannot explain-those objects that are established in science. Outside the conditions.
Science can explain "why people respond to fear", but cannot explain "I am afraid of a mosquito." Science can explain "certain behavioral patterns are associated with certain emotions", but cannot explain "I am angry." Science can explain "the neural basis of memory," but not "the tree I remember climbing as a child." It describes certain states, not your experience of those states.
3."What is not in line with science is superstition"
This sentence uses science as the only criterion for judging "trustworthiness" and "untrustworthiness". Its implicit premise is that all valid knowledge must meet scientific standards; knowledge that does not meet scientific standards is not credible.
But this premise itself is problematic: science only verifies assertions that can be verified; assertions that are not verified may just have not yet been verified, which does not mean that it is necessarily wrong. For example, the meridian system and acupuncture effects of traditional Chinese medicine could not be verified through experimental methods at the early stage of modern scientific development, but this does not mean that they were ineffective-they just exceeded the scope of application of the verification methods at that time. With the update of verification tools, some content has begun to be included in the verifiable scope, while other parts are still not within the scope. Over time, boundaries may move, but there is no guarantee that they will eventually be fully covered.
More importantly, much knowledge that does not belong to the scope of science is still valid for us. For example: You know your friends are trustworthy. This doesn't come from experiments, it doesn't come from statistics, it doesn't come from repeatable verification, you just know. This knowledge cannot be "scientifically" proven, but it is true for you. When you equate "unscientifically proven" with "untrustworthy," you may miss out on knowledge that has already begun to operate in your life but has not yet been incorporated by science.
4."Science is another form of religion"
This sentence usually comes from two observations: science occupies an authoritative position similar to religion in some people's discourse; and the scientific community has an organizational structure and inheritance method similar to that of the church.
But this analogy ignores a fundamental difference: the authority of religion comes from doctrine, while the authority of science comes from method. Religious teachings cannot be questioned; scientific methods encourage questioning. Religion's interpretation of doctrine is monopolized by specific institutions; scientific verification is open to anyone. The conclusion of religion is to "believe it"; the conclusion of science is "for the time being, and it can be revised when new evidence emerges."
Science can be trusted not because its conclusions are absolutely correct-on the contrary, because its conclusions can be revised, so it is more trustworthy than authority that cannot be revised. When science is used as "another religion", this only shows that many people do not understand the methods of science and only worship it as an authority that can replace traditional religions. But what they worship is not science itself, but their incomplete imagination of science.
5. A more complete perspective: the stratification of knowledge
Instead of arguing about whether science explains everything or whether science is a religion, it's better to adopt a hierarchical perspective:
Scientific level: Dealing with observable, verifiable, and repeatable phenomena. This is the core area of scientific validity.
Critical level: Dealing with assumptions that have not yet been verified or cannot be verified. This is not a mistake, it is just outside the boundaries of science.
Experience level: Handle personal experience, meaning judgment, and value choice. These areas cannot be verified experimentally, but their effectiveness can already be confirmed in individual perceptions.
Traditional knowledge layer: Dealing with experiences passed down from generation to generation (such as traditional Chinese medicine, local agricultural knowledge). Some can be incorporated into science, and some are outside science, but still produce results in practice.
Science only works on the first level. Other layers do not need to borrow scientific standards or be denied by science. Science is not the only source of knowledge-it is the most reliable one, but it does not cover all experience. "Reliable" means that it can be repeatedly verified under different conditions, but not all knowledge needs to be of this nature to be confirmed at the individual level.
The boundary of science is not its enemies, but its self-protection mechanism: Only by knowing what can and cannot be handled can science maintain its effectiveness. As it attempts to explain everything, it has begun to explain what it cannot explain, entering an area where it cannot guarantee the validity of its conclusions. The integrity of science does not lie in how wide it covers, but in its admission that this is the only step it can do at present. Beyond this scope, you need to wait for more information, or admit that the information is not available and then shelve it for the time being. Content beyond the scope of science should not be judged by science, nor should it be rejected by science. They just are not on the same verifiable level. Judgements outside science can remain valid outside science and do not need to enter the scientific system to be confirmed.