The scientific method is a continuous process of observations, hypotheses, experiments, and theories, designed to guide our natural inquiry and produce consolidated knowledge of the world around us. It can tackle questions regarding the causative mechanisms of universal phenomena, whether they are physical events in the world or mental events in our minds. Proper application of the scientific method always pushes us towards a better understanding.

In light of these powerful capabilities, it is important to realise the points beyond which application of the scientific method is no longer relevant. These are defined by none other than its own human design.

The overarching problem arises in that the scope of questions and inquiry extends beyond the universal phenomena mentioned earlier. Our questions and hypotheses do not stop once they reach the physical boundaries of the universe. And why should they? These are the sorts of questions that enter the realm of philosophy and early morning deep meaningful conversations.

It is by quirk of design, however, that the usefulness of science is limited by these boundaries. For example, one of the core features of the scientific cycle is falsifiable hypotheses: if a hypothesis cannot be disproven, then the scientific method simply cannot be applied. Any questions addressing concepts beyond our universe are not testable, thus not falsifiable, making them scientifically invalid. This means nothing more than that, to science, they have no answer. This is through no fault of the questions, and no fault of the people asking them.

This limitation is made extremely relevant due to the fact that these super-universal questions are, in perhaps a humorous fashion, some of the most important ones to humans in general. One of these ‘classic’ unscientific questions that humanity has pursued for millennia on end is: is there some higher power beyond our world? From science, the answer can only be no answer at all. By science’s own construction, this question lies beyond its limits: any hypothesis attempting to answer it is neither falsifiable, nor provable. To tell someone of religious following that their beliefs in a higher power are irrational and against science would not only be pointlessly offensive but, moreover, irrational in itself. True science can have no views on the topic as there is no solid experimental ground on which to apply the scientific method.

“Every one of us allows an unscientific centre of moral mass”

It seems natural to wonder about the questions rather than the lack of answers. Should an unscientific question like this be asked, let alone have people spend countless hours debating it? We should realise exactly what science is: useful, progressive, and rational to be sure; but also just a system that we ourselves have defined to help us explore our world. Not to ask questions that lie beyond its limits just because we like to answer things scientifically could surely be likened to confirmation bias of science as a whole. It would be strengthening our confidence in the scientific method by repressing its limitations. Do we find biases agreeable as scientists?

Understanding science in this way can lead to much more individually relevant concepts than the abstract ideas outlined above. On some level, we all have an idea of what we would say to the question of ‘what has most fundamental value to you?’ The answer takes the form of concepts such as fame, happiness or freedom, and of course it can vary considerably.

The answer a person might personally give is unimportant; more significant is the fact that every single one of us gives any answer at all. The physical world places everything on an equal footing; nothing is objectively good or bad. Thus, ‘our’ science that deals with this world can apply no moral judgement by which to rank them. Yet every one of us, even those who consider themselves as rational and scientific as can be, form ideas such as ‘what we really want’. These guide us every day and our judgements of right and wrong revolve around them. Every one of us allows this unscientific centre of moral mass.

What is more, this is entirely inevitable. We need direction and purpose in our lives, however much knowledge we may have gleaned from scientific study or otherwise. It is generally considered an issue to have no direction and aim for absolutely nothing in life. Even if we understand the cold, hard physical world completely, does that provide us with any direction in which to go with that knowledge? Indeed, figuring out what to do with scientific knowledge may be beyond the scope of that same information. The path to go down can only be chosen by us and depends on how we answer that question of our fundamental values.

Spotlight On: Cross-discipline research in Earth Sciences

Clearly we have found some common ground between all of us: this unscientific undercurrent. This core value is essential, unavoidable, and critical to our ability to actually do anything with our lives. So how do people differ? Some don’t really think about ultimate values, but their unconscious psychology will have made the decision for them. For the people that do think about them, how do they consciously decide? It requires some personal reflection. This might be by discussing these topics at length with friends, or reading about how previous people have tackled this question. In other words, become what we may term a ‘casual philosopher’. I would certainly consider myself to fall in this camp.

Essentially, we all try to consolidate our core values, and we guide ourselves to do so using different means. Whether trying to figure out this internal direction or having already found it, this is an ubiquitous feature among all of us. Bringing this full circle, it is important for scientists to push our understanding further than before, applying what is an incredibly powerful method. But it is as important for us to take a step back and examine our own sensibilities and understand the limitations of our approach