We all know that in science any experiment we do, we take a set of assumptions based on reasonable indications. Like while plotting Flow-rate Vs Head graph of a pump at a given constant angular speed, we accept that will stay constant. But practically fluctuates. Still we accept it as constant because we understand that the variation in affects the graph within acceptable limits and thus it’s constant for practical purposes. This is a reasonable assumption. Also if, during the experiments, we see that the results are changing very much than we don’t accept the results. Thus initial assumptions are also changeable. The basis of initial assumptions should be reasonable which has two supports: a) Previous experience, b) Common sense. Common sense bases itself on previous data as well as intuition. Like Newton saw apple falling down and he get the intuition to ask “how it fell down only?” He must have seen so many things falling down but this question didn’t strike him then.
In case of things beyond our perception common sense is purely intuitional as no previous experience is possible. So then the basis of our assumptions should be common sense. All the foundational assumptions of modern science are beyond its perception but are not complying with the common sense, neither are they reasonable.
Refutation of the Fundamental postulates based on logic and common sense
1) No Creator of the Universe
Everything we see around that is having order and organization has a creator and a controller. Why not nature? This is common sense. Even though there is no previous data in a child still he asks “who made this sun, moon, etc”.
2) No Life separate from matter
There is no observation of any sort of life coming into being without a touch of life. While we see that a person cannot beget a child in the womb of a dead woman.
In all languages, when a person is dead, it is said “he has gone away”. This is common sense (even without considering) that the living soul that was residing in the body has gone away.
The law gives Capital Punishment to the murderer but only some meager fine and sentence to a person who broke your Mercedes car. Why? It requires at least 3-4 years heavy work to purchase such a car, while a child can be had just by the enjoyment of 5 minutes. Then why a person is given more value than car?
“A scientist is sleeping in his house with his wife and a 1-year old child. The house catches intense fire. He immediately rushes out with his wife as soon as he comes to know. But he remembers that his child is inside and so are his 20-years research papers on the subject – “Chemical evolution of life‟. He can save anyone of them. Whom will he select?” Obviously he will select child. According to his (so called) belief that life comes from matter, it’s more reasonable to save his 20-years research papers than his child because child he can again have with very little effort as his wife is also living, and within 2 years same will be the situation. But that will not be practical. So here we see that even so called scientists who believe that life comes from matter, by intuition and practice actually believe that life is separate from matter. Thus it is to be accepted that this is a sense common to all – Life is separate from matter. Thus the postulate under discussion is refuted.
3) Human mind can understand everything in the Universe
If human mind can understand everything in nature then who will understand human mind which is also within nature? Gödel’s Theorem also proves this wrong.
4) Hoping the existence of the Single material law encompassing all other laws
We see everything very complex and following discrete laws according to time place and circumstance. For instance, different nations have different laws. Behavior of a person with different persons is different depending on his relationship with them. Different laws on different planets.
5) Extrapolating theories tested in a limited expanse on earth to the whole Universe
We see that extrapolation under limit or scope is alright but beyond that it will be a mistake. For instance, in India traffic rule is – “keep to left”. So it will be alright to think that anywhere in India. But if I extrapolate that law to US also then I am mistaken.
Also it’s easy to understand that we have our own conception of Universe which changes with time. So today we think that it should apply in the whole Universe but tomorrow we may find out that it’s not so.
Moreover how can we think that we have searched all possible factors that affect the law under consideration? For example, we have found a total of 108 elements on earth and we expect that there will be no other element anywhere in Universe. This is not common sense. In Sahara Desert ice is never found. So if someone concludes that no such thing as ice exists in whole world, then that’s not common sense. Similarly we have concluded that the light waves emitted by a particular atom is unique for that atom. This we have concluded just by experimenting on earth. There may be an element much heavier than an element on earth but still emitting the same wavelength.
6) Non-existence of any process other than the ascending one to gain knowledge
Actually in common dealings, practically we use hearing from an authority much more than ascending process. We accept a person to be our father just based on the words of our mother. We do not go on experimenting to know “who is my father?”. We accept that the food given by the mother or wife has no poison mixed into it. We accept that the building we are sitting in, will not fall down, Passovers will not fall, bridges will not crumble, sun will rise tomorrow, breathing and heartbeat will go on, man is mortal, etc. So it is impractical to say that we don’t accept anything that is not proved by ascending process as it cannot be applied practically, not even by the proposers of this view. So by common sense we have to accept that there is other process to know things beyond ascending process.
Also there is a logical fallacy in this postulate. If one says that the knowledge can be had only by ascending process then how did one get this particular knowledge? Have one ascertained it by the ascending process? No, one cannot ascertain anything by the ascending process as the amount of observations one can take is limited while the Universe is unlimited and there will always be doubt that what I concluded by an available set of observations may be refuted by future observations (which will go on for infinite amount of time). Even if, for argument sake, one takes all observations then also observation of taking observation will always be left. Thus it’s a logical fallacy.