Justified Elitism

Science is just one among different belief systems or systems of knowledge. It is said to be a belief system or a system of knowledge by virtue of its accounts regarding (or descriptions of) phenomena. It is just one among many systems that seek to make an explanation of the world. Other belief systems, though create their own explanation of the world, use different approaches and presuppose different assumptions, which are in accordance to the beliefs that these systems uphold. Myths and superstitions, for example, take different approach in explaining phenomena. Their construal of phenomena is dependent on the accounts of people whose speculations regarding the phenomena in question did not undergo examinations. The believers of these belief systems embrace the mere speculative accounts regarding phenomena as though they are self-evidently true. Science is taught to us since primary education as a system that explains phenomena or the world in a different manner - a manner that is not anchored on mere speculations but on accounts regarding the world that are warranted by evidences.

However, the education that the society provides regarding these belief systems does more than just teaching us the idea that science is backed-up by evidences while others are not. The education that there is creates a ruling out of other belief systems as reliable sources of knowledge. In certain cases wherein ruling out is not employed, the education that there is creates a hierarchy of reliability of the sources of knowledge (or belief systems that provide explanation of the world). At the topmost of this hierarchy is science. In such case, if the beliefs that are being upheld by other belief systems are to be ever authorized as reliable knowledge, then a certification from science is often sought. Religion often times explains its teachings through making an appeal to science. There are theologians who would explain teachings in the bible through backing up with scientific studies. In such case, their teachings would be appealing to the skeptics. There are also myths and/or superstitions that are explained through making them appear scientific. Fortune telling, through referring to the positioning of the stars, is sometimes referred to by others as scientific. This is what others call "the science of astrology." Scientific community, however, calls this a pseudo-science.

But why is science given such paramount importance? Why do most people make an appeal to science in warranting their claims? Such is because of the education (or shall I say, "miseducation," if I would ever be allowed to invent and use such word) that we receive regarding science. Science is taught as if its laws (e.g., laws of motion) are self-evidently true. Scientific facts are almost taken as synonymous with scientific laws. Scientific laws are taken as if they are indeed a mirror image of the world. However, such is not the case. Science does appeal to empirical evidences in explaining phenomena. But this does not make science create a flawless account of what the world actually is. To take scientific laws as self-evident would be the same as to accept myths and superstitions as self-evident. In this case, both are merely accepted simply because they are taught to us as reliable sources of knowledge. The only difference is, the sources of scientific teachings have big names and often times, have degrees received from reputable universities, while those of the myths and superstitions do not.

The previous paragraph does not intend to mean that science and other systems of knowledge stands in equal footing with each other. I do not even wish such to be the case. However, if science were to be given with a higher regard, such should not be because of the beliefs that it upholds. These beliefs are not self-evident. Even science does not profess that these beliefs are self-evident. It does not brag for the certainty of its beliefs. If science were to be taken as a reliable source of knowledge solely by virtue of the reliability (due to appeal to self-evidence) of its beliefs, it would be reduced to a "mere act of faith." The reliability of science must be attributed not to its beliefs but to the approach that it takes in order to arrive at its beliefs.

Paul Feyerabend would oppose this idea by claiming that science has no monopoly in the production of reliable knowledge. The world is a "largely unknown entity," and hence there is no single way of looking at the world and no uniform way of explaining the phenomena that occur. In such case, there is no right approach in dealing with knowledge of the world. His account on the existence of different approaches is appealing, but his theoretical anarchism is, however, unacceptable.

Surely, there are different approaches in explaining the world. Each of them has a pragmatic value to its believers. Even science has no single method. Scientists, throughout the ages, use different methods in arriving at their theories. Some of the methods are Bacon's Inductivism, Newton's Hypothetico-Deductivism and Popper's Falsificationalism. These various scientific methods, however, have a unifying feature, which serves as the "approach" of science in dealing with the world. These are methods that are under a single approach - the employment of empirical testability. The existence of different methods shows the plausibility of anarchism within the realm of science. However, anarchism outside science or anarchism in terms of choosing for the more reliable source of knowledge (or belief system) is untenable.

Putting the various methods of science in equal footing is acceptable but doing the same to belief systems is not. The common feature among various scientific methods, which is the employment of empirical testability (which serves as the approach of science), allows for the elimination of the unobservable from the observable. The elimination of the unobservable is important because they cannot serve as evidences for the beliefs that are being upheld. Other systems do not employ such empirical testability and are not concerned with the elimination of the unobservable. It does not matter for these systems if their beliefs are unverifiable and/or unobservable. What matters is that the beliefs that they uphold are believed. They are "mere acts of faith." Though it can be argued that science also takes a leap of faith, it does so by relying on evidences. Thus, even if science takes a leap of faith, it is not merely an act of faith. It is thus through the existence of evidences that science is able to gain its reliability.

The empirical testability that there is opens the door for intersubjective certification, which means that we can verify the claims of science and see, through our own observations, whether these claims are indeed anchored on evidences and not on mere speculations. One might say that this is elitism in favor of science. Such sort of elitism, however, is allowable. For those who cannot accept things simply because they are and take that there must be reasons by which things are, evidence is a must. As I have stated in one of my essays, this is a matter of evidences versus mere act of faith, and those who side with evidences side with science.