Science

Definition:

“Science” is a structured and methodical approach to acquiring knowledge, using observation, experimentation, and reasoning to understand, explain, and predict phenomena—whether in the natural world (as in physics or biology), in human behavior and society (as in sociology or economics), or within abstract systems (as in mathematics or linguistics). It involves creating models, theories, or frameworks that are evaluated through logic, empirical testing, or internal consistency.

Etymology:

The word “science” comes from the Latin “scientia,” meaning “knowledge,” which is derived from “sciō,” meaning “I know.” In classical Latin, it referred broadly to knowledge or skill, but during the Middle Ages and especially in the Enlightenment, it evolved to refer specifically to knowledge obtained through demonstrable and reproducible methods.

Description:

Science, much like religion, operates as a language. This is often referred to as the “scientific language,” a system of concepts, terms, and frameworks through which knowledge is structured and communicated. Because of this linguistic framework, many religious individuals perceive science as a type of religion—a perspective that, from a linguistic and structural point of view, holds merit.

At the heart of all scientific disciplines is the scientific language, which informs how theories are formulated, how questions are asked, and how answers are framed. Just as the concept of a divine creator (the “beginning“) lies at the core of many religious languages, the Big Bang (also a “beginning“) lies at the core of scientific language. These are foundational myths—origin stories through which broader systems of logic and interpretation are built.

In theistic traditions, the word “nothing” is often equated with true nonexistence, a void, the lack of something. In these systems, existence cannot come from nothing, so it is said to come from “God.” Science, on the other hand, often describes the origin of existence as coming from “nothing.” However, in the scientific language, “nothing” is not synonymous with nonexistence; it may refer to a quantum vacuum, a zero-point field, or an unobservable condition—concepts that are, in fact, something. This semantic difference results in foundational premises in both science and religion that are, when analyzed across linguistic boundaries, logically inconsistent or even self-contradictory. Thus, from a strictly linguistic standpoint, both systems begin from premises that cannot be fully verified, making them irrational by default.

Another example of how scientific language is manipulated at its core—much like in religion—is the definition of “knowledge” itself. In many religious languages, knowledge is equated with absolute certainty: to “know” something is to believe it is 100% true. This is how the existence of God or the divine origin of scripture is typically presented—not as belief or hypothesis, but as unquestionable knowledge. However, these are claims of absolute truth, not verifiable certainties. In reality, the existence of God or the divine nature of scripture cannot be proven with absolute certainty, yet within the logic of religious language, they are treated as such.

In contrast, scientific language defines knowledge differently. It does not require certainty or truth in the absolute sense. Instead, knowledge may include information that is provisional, fallible, or even later proven false. One of the most widely accepted ideas in science—almost a golden rule—is the claim that “we can’t be 100% certain about anything.” But this claim contains a built-in paradox: it is itself a statement of 100% certainty about the impossibility of certainty. A more logically consistent version would be, “We don’t know if we can be 100% certain about anything.”

And yet, there are truths that are indeed absolutely certain. For example, the fact that existence exists is undeniable; it is self-evident and logically necessary. To deny it is to affirm it. Nevertheless, in scientific language, such certainties are often overlooked or sidelined, revealing another inconsistency at the heart of how science defines and applies the concept of knowledge.

Moreover, scientific language—like religious language—is filled with structural tricks that allow for theories without actual proof to be accepted as legitimate science. This is especially true in fields that are fundamentally constructed or symbolic in nature, such as mathematics, linguistics, computer science, psychiatry, metaphysics, quantum theory, and economics. These are all systems that operate through internally consistent languages, which is why terms like “the language of mathematics,” “the science of language,” or “the metaphysical language” are commonly used.

What this reveals is that science itself contains elements of what could be called pseudoscience. However, there’s a linguistic mechanism in place in scientific language that protects these fields from being classified as such. In scientific language, pseudoscience is strictly defined as “beliefs, theories, or practices that claim to be scientific or appear to be based on science, but don’t follow the scientific method.” This narrow definition excludes entire constructed systems simply because they are internally consistent and follow established procedural rules, regardless of whether their premises or conclusions correspond to how things actually are.

This brings us to the question: Why are disciplines like economics, mathematics, or psychiatry considered scientific, while astrology or homeopathy are not? The answer lies not in verification of existence, but in linguistic structure. Fields such as economics or psychiatry operate within well-defined sets of linguistic rules—premises, logic, and conclusions that cohere within a system. Whether those premises reflect actual, observable truth is irrelevant to whether the system “works” within its own structure.

Take, for instance, the “science of lying.” This is a real field of study, even though lying is by definition based on falsehood. The logic that follows within the framework of a lie can be internally consistent and produce real-world effects—it functions. And in the language of science, anything that functions, anything that produces observable outcomes, can be studied, categorized, and validated—not necessarily as truth, but as effectiveness.

In this way, science—like religion—is less a mirror of reality and more a tool for constructing meaning, navigating systems, and producing functional models. Whether these models are ultimately true is a separate question from whether they are scientific.

Science does distinguish itself from religion in a significant way. Even though science operates within its own language and constructed system of logic, there is a reason why much of the information that corresponds to how things actually are is attributed to science—though this attribution is not always deserved.

Science has its own internal rules and methodologies for determining what is considered true. However, many of these methods are not actually reliable mechanisms for discovering objective truth. Despite this, science tends to operate under a kind of unspoken golden rule: “May the proof win.” This principle means that, in theory, the strength of a claim in science should always rest on the quality and reproducibility of its proof, not on who makes the claim or how authoritative it appears.

A clear contradiction within science lies in the peer-review process. In this method, a group of qualified experts (peers) must read and evaluate a scientific paper, attempting to replicate its methods and confirm its results. If successful, the paper is then deemed “peer-reviewed” and accepted as part of the scientific body of knowledge. However, this process inherently depends on an appeal to authority—a logical fallacy. The validity of a claim becomes tethered to the endorsement of those deemed to “understand” science, rather than to the intrinsic merit of the evidence itself.

This is where the golden rule—”may the proof win”—becomes both science’s saving grace and its internal critique. Even though peer review is widely regarded as one of the most essential pillars of scientific integrity, it must still, in principle, be vulnerable to logical scrutiny. If it can be shown, through valid reasoning and proof, that peer review is flawed or fallacious, then science must allow for the rejection of that method—even if it’s deeply entrenched. That’s the ethos: truth should not depend on consensus, but on demonstration.

This foundational attitude explains why disagreement is not only allowed but essential within the scientific community. Different scientists, using the same or similar methods, often arrive at different conclusions. This diversity of interpretation is not seen as a weakness but as a reflection of the inherent uncertainty in empirical exploration. One of the core values in science is the recognition that “we might be wrong.” The willingness to revise or abandon a theory in light of new, compelling, or debunking evidence is considered a virtue—not a failure.

In this sense, while science may be flawed, inconsistent, and sometimes even irrational in its practices, its cultural commitment to allowing proof to overturn consensus is what gives it a unique and adaptive power. However, the same can’t always be said for the scientific community, which is made up of fallible humans with biases, incentives, and egos. Just like with religion, it’s important to distinguish the principles of a system from its followers.

Articles:

Symbolism:

Articles: