Science is an inescapable feature of the modern world, so it important to think clearly about it. Real science must be distinguished from something called scientism. J.P. Moreland explains:
“When a statement includes itself within its field of reference and fails to satisy itself (i.e., to conform to its own criteria of acceptability), it is self-refuting. For example, ‘There are no true statements,’ ‘I do not exist,’ and ‘No one can utter a word in English’ (uttered in English) are all self-refuting…If they are assumed to be true, what they assert proves them false…A dogmatic claim of scientism (e.g., ‘only what can be known by science or quantified and tested empirically is true and rational’) is self-refuting. The statement itself is not a statement of science, but a second-order philosophical statement about science…Another way to put this is to say that the definition, aims, and justification of science are philosophical presuppositions about science and cannot be validated by science…The validation of science is a philosophical issue, at least in part, and any claim to the contrary will itself be philosophical” (Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation, p. 107).
In other words, real science is honest about its connection to philosophy. “What is science?” is a philosophical question. Scientism, in seeking to establish a “science” standing alone apart from philosophy, actually undermines science. Schools in America are raising a whole generation of students (I am among them) who are taught scientism and are ignorant that 1) scientism undermines science and 2) real science is connected to philosophy in essential ways. It is deception, self-refuting deception, to present scientism as mere “Science.”