Is science advancing toward absolute truth, or is it just a repetition of paradigms? In this blog post, I will reflect on the nature and purpose of science centered around this question.
While reading books on the philosophy of science, I learned about discussions on how science accumulates knowledge and progresses. Through my reading, I examined various positions in the philosophy of science, such as inductivism and falsificationism, rationalism and relativism. In particular, the term ‘paradigm’ presented in Thomas Samuel Kuhn’s ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ enhanced my understanding of the structure in which science operates. I also learned that this concept has become so widely known that it is used in many fields beyond science. Kuhn’s paradigm theory extends beyond merely explaining scientific progress; it has become a tool for describing shifts in thinking or innovation across diverse fields. Thus, I realized that paradigms profoundly influence people’s perceptions and ways of thinking, transcending purely academic structures.
Yet, questions about scientific progress and truth remain. If science is merely a process of presenting new perspectives, can we pursue absolute truth? While the theory explains how knowledge accumulates through ‘paradigms,’ and how scientific revolutions occur when new normal science is established after navigating various crises, it clarifies that this development does not necessarily pursue absolute truth. It merely presents a new way of viewing the world or a new method for explaining phenomena; it does not bring us closer to ‘absolute truth’. Having previously believed science was a discipline pursuing ‘absolute truth’, I found myself agreeing with Kuhn’s theory yet struggling to accept certain parts. Therefore, in this blog post, I wish to reconsider truth and further discuss the purpose of science.
Let’s consider truth. What is truth? The nature of truth varies depending on the perspective from which it is defined: philosophical truth, religious truth, mathematical truth, and so on. Truth can also be described as an objective fact, and how it is accepted within science is also important. Let’s examine what is considered truth in the scientific field. It is a truth that the Earth orbits the Sun once every 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds. It is also a truth that all matter is composed of atoms. From a relativistic standpoint, this is expressed as follows: Recognizing that the Earth orbits the Sun as truth only became accepted after Nicolaus Copernicus’s position gained acceptance. Before that, the geocentric model was accepted as truth, not the heliocentric model. Recognizing that all matter is composed of atoms as truth also began only after atomic theory was accepted.
In other words, relativists argue that truth is determined by which position we accept, by which perspective we view phenomena. Kuhn argued that this stance, this perspective, constitutes a ‘paradigm’. According to this view, truth is merely an incomplete construct that varies with our perspective on things; it is not absolute. An absolute truth permeating the entire universe does not exist and therefore cannot be found. However, questions remain about whether this relativistic perspective fully explains the essence of science. While relativism may explain the context of scientific discovery, the perspective that there are underlying, unchanging facts cannot be ignored.
My view differs somewhat. Even before Nicolaus Copernicus’s position was accepted, the Earth revolved around the Sun, and even before atomic theory was accepted, all matter was composed of atoms. Oxygen was utilized in respiration and participated in various chemical reactions long before its existence was recognized. In other words, the essence of a phenomenon existed long before we could explain it. We were simply a bit late in recognizing it. So, what can we say about things we haven’t yet recognized? Can we say the truth about unrecognized things exists? My position is that it can be said to exist.
This raises an important philosophical question. We accumulate knowledge through observation, but our observations may not reveal the entire essence. Consider a prime example of truth we have yet to perceive: research into the factors accelerating the expansion of the universe. Dark matter is currently presented as a leading candidate for the factor accelerating the expansion. Because it is difficult to observe directly and has not been definitively proven, it remains a hypothetical substance, albeit a strong one. If this substance is observed and truly proven, this hypothesis will later be accepted as truth. However, if this hypothesis is proven false, another hypothesis will emerge, and research to prove that hypothesis will continue.
In science, truth expands gradually in this manner. Even if we cannot fully reach the truth, through persistent inquiry, we are steadily drawing closer to it. The numerous paradigm shifts that occur during this process are not mere changes in perspective, but simply steps in our journey toward absolute truth. Therefore, I believe a paradigm shift is not merely accepting a new theory, but rather that theory serving as a tool that gradually guides us toward truth.
Thus, my argument is that behind the existence or manifestation of any object or phenomenon, whether we know it or not, lies an absolute truth. I believe we should call this truth scientific truth, and the position that explains this absolute scientific truth should be considered a paradigm. Therefore, this differs from Kuhn’s position that a paradigm is not something that develops in a particular direction, but rather one that simply withstands falsification well and overcomes crises. I believe a paradigm will, and must, progress toward a direction that perfectly explains scientific truth. Pursuing scientific truth! That is the purpose of science and the significance of scientific activity.
