Strengths and Limitations of Natural Science

Natural science is one of the areas of knowledge we rely on the most in our lives; whether it be to cure someone’s illness or build that new spaceship that will take us to mars. Natural science is something we all depend upon in our daily lives to carry out even the simplest of functions such as filling a glass with water or using a cloth to carry a hot plate. It is essentially a set of laws which we trust to define the universe and everything within it. The only problem is that we keep changing them, and this brings us to the strengths and limitations of natural science as an area of knowledge.

Firstly, as the article outlines, theories are established based on the accuracy or standards of measurement of that time period. This means that as time progresses better instruments of measurement are created which can be used to refine or build upon previous theories which is a strength. The basic and main assumption which is made when dealing with knowledge gained from the natural sciences is that the instruments of measurement are fairly accurate to base a theory on, which then becomes the basis for multiple other scientific laws; for example, the theory of gravity is established as a base for multiple other laws of forces. If the basic assumption is later found to be incorrect, then everything established upon and around it is falsified, leaving us once again with lack of knowledge of our surroundings; this is a weakness.

The implications of this can be seen as both strengths and limitations; we have found the cure to some life threatening diseases, but these diseases which are supposedly cured could just be slowed down or the beginning of something even worse. We could be headed for a cosmic body we don’t know about, and we could potentially stop it with the right instruments which we don’t have- but how do we know we need better instruments if we don’t have the slightest idea that this event will take place? Is ignorance really bliss? Also, if this is always the case, when will technology be good enough to provide us truth about the universe? Will it ever be good enough? How will we know when that is? Are measurement standards based on how well the information works on things we can work with? For example, can medicine be considered good if it stops something for the rest of a person’s life but we don’t know about other things it does such as mutation or covert side effects? Essentially, is the reliability of the results based on the setting of that time period and how that information helps confined to those certain settings? Is the confidence we have in this information based on the results it gives us no matter if the foundation is wrong?

Another downfall of natural sciences is that people classify theories as right or wrong and end it there. They don’t stop to think that to what extent is this right or wrong. “Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete.” This quote from the article suggests that no theory is wrong because the information which that theory provides us with is what other theories are based off of. How right or how wrong a theory is along with how we know this is essential to understanding natural sciences as well as using them to our benefit. Different perspectives also have to be taken into account while establishing how right or wrong a theory is; for example, when examining the theory of the earth being flat it is important to look at what measurements are being taken into account. As outlined in the article, per square mile the curvature of the earth doesn’t change much but when looked at as a planet with a center of gravity, it takes a sphere like shape. Although further researched suggested that even the sphere theory was incomplete. Through this train of thought it is clear to see how one idea leads to the next and the relative differences in the ideas are how we measure how right or wrong a theory is. Potentially, when many theories are established which are close to one another it can be called a very reliable idea, almost the truth.