Scientific Argument

Dr. Mohammed Akram Nadwi, Oxford

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

This article clarifies what is meant by “scientific argument,” and distinguishes it from other forms of reasoning, such as religious or legal reasoning. The goal is to outline the boundaries and utility of scientific argumentation, and to emphasise that truth is not the exclusive preserve of empirical science.

Many people use the term “scientific argument,” but few possess a well-defined understanding of what it entails. In practice, the phrase is often employed without reflection.

Scientific research is grounded in experimentation. The theories and ideas that emerge from experiments are never final; they remain under constant review and critique. It is through challenge and counter-challenge that science progresses.

Science does not entertain any idea that lacks clear explanation or cannot be tested and verified. This is what builds trust in scientific inquiry. A scientist cannot assert something he does not understand himself, nor can he present it if he is unable to explain it to others working in the same field.

One of the driving forces of science is the process of identifying the weaknesses and limitations in others’ arguments and experimental designs, with the aim of refining them. This methodology is known as “Evidence-Based Argumentation”.

However, scientific argument applies only to matters that can be tested under experimental conditions. Claims outside this domain—such as the theory of human evolution—remain speculative. Since evolution cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory, both the claim and its supporting arguments fall outside the bounds of empirical science.

The fact that a certain argument is not scientific does not imply that it is false. There are many types of reasoning. Each type of claim must be supported according to the principles appropriate to its own discipline. For example, the methods used to verify a literary text are not the same as those used in DNA analysis. Such arguments are “subjective”, not “objective”—and the majority of disciplines, whether in the East or West, rely upon such non-objective reasoning.

When scholars say that a particular ‘ḥadīth’ is ‘ṣaḥīḥ’, can this be proven through purely objective methods? Certainly not. The same applies to ‘fiqhī’ rulings. When we say there are four obligations in wuḍūʼ, or three in ghusl, or certain prescribed actions in ṣalāh, none of these claims can be demonstrated objectively. Nor can one jurist ever completely convince another of the certainty of his ijtihad.

By contrast, when we say that the distance between two cities is such and such, this can be verified objectively and would not be disputed.

How, then, can one make reliable claims based on non-objective reasoning? The answer lies in connecting such reasoning to a wide body of concrete instances, then subjecting these to critique. One must study the disagreements among experts carefully, neither dismissing them nor disparaging them. The more diverse the perspectives, and the more open-minded the examination, the closer one comes to understanding the strength of a given argument.

If the opinion of one scholar is given undue reverence, this stifles the development of thought. It increases the likelihood that errors will be transmitted from generation to generation, leaving people deprived of correct understanding for long periods.

Many examples could be provided to illustrate this, but they are intentionally omitted. This is because some scholarly errors become so entangled with emotion and reverence that they are treated as matters of creed. Most people find it uncomfortable—even offensive—to be invited to reconsider such long-held positions.

Scientific argumentation has a defined scope: it is limited to matters that can be tested and verified through experimentation. Outside that realm, other valid forms of reasoning—often subjective—govern inquiry. To confuse these domains, or to treat scientific argument as the exclusive measure of truth, is a serious error.

A disciplined and respectful engagement with the full range of human reasoning is essential if we are to reach sound conclusions in religion, ethics, literature, and the law.

Disclaimer: This article was translated by AI. Original post: [https://t.me/DrAkramNadwi/6495]