Does Science Require the Observable Axiom?

In an ideal world, science would not require any axioms. Science should be a search for truth and understanding. Axioms assume certain things to be true. So if an axiom is wrong, there is no way to prove that it is wrong. Nevertheless, some axioms are required. If science does not assume that man can accurately observe reality, then all of the theories developed as a result of this observation are called into question. There is no way for science to rid itself of the observable axiom.

Just like the naturalistic axiom, the observable axiom interferes with the scientific method. For example, consider the following question. Does a tree in the forest make a sound when it falls if nobody is around to hear it. Science says it does. Scientists can never be 100% sure that their observations are not influencing the outcome. Nevertheless, the observable axiom comes to the rescue. With this axiom, scientists are free to study sound waves and develop models for how they are created. The models do not seem to depend on whether or not an observer is present. So science concludes that a tree in the forest will make a sound even if nobody is around to hear it.

home: Intelligent Design or Evolution?                 

next: science does not need the naturalistic axiom