The Nature and Nuances of Scientific Evidence

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

Scientific Evidence
By: Dr. Muhammad Akram Nadwi
Oxford

Disclaimer:

This article has been translated by AI for accessibility purposes. For the original Arabic text, please refer to this link: https://t.me/DrAkramNadwi/5762.

People frequently use the term “scientific evidence,” but its meaning is often ambiguous and poorly defined. In fact, this term is frequently employed without proper understanding.

The foundation of scientific research lies in experimentation. The ideas and theories derived from these experiments are always subject to critique and revision. These challenges and counter-challenges play a vital role in advancing scientific knowledge.

Science does not consider any concept worthy of attention unless it can be clearly explained and supported—or refuted—through evidence. This is the principle that increases trust in scientific research. A scientist cannot make a claim without understanding it themselves or being able to explain it to their peers.

Scientists actively seek to identify weaknesses and limitations in arguments to ultimately improve and refine scientific explanations and experimental designs. This process is known as “evidence-based argumentation.”

Scientific evidence is only valid for matters that can be subjected to laboratory experiments. Beyond such matters, all discussions—whether by scientists or non-scientists—fall outside the realm of “scientific.” For example, the claim regarding human evolution is unscientific, as is the evidence supporting it, because evolution cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory.

The fact that a piece of evidence is non-scientific does not necessarily mean it is false. There are countless types of evidence, and each claim requires its evidence to align with its own principles. For instance, the method of verifying a literary text differs from conducting a DNA test. Such evidence is subjective rather than objective. Most of the world’s sciences and arts, whether from the East or West, rely on subjective evidence.

For example, when we claim that a particular hadith is authentic, can we prove it objectively? The answer is undoubtedly no. The same applies to jurisprudential issues. When we state that there are four obligations in ablution or three in bathing, or that prayer has specific obligations, duties, and Sunnahs, none of these claims can be presented objectively. Additionally, no jurist can definitively convince another of their ijtihad.

In contrast, if we say that the distance between two cities is a certain number of kilometers, this can be demonstrated objectively, leaving no room for disagreement.

How, then, can one make claims based on subjective evidence? The approach is to connect such evidence with numerous genuine particulars, then present these particulars and the generalities formed from them for scrutiny. The opinions of experts in the field must be carefully studied, avoiding dismissiveness or mockery. The more extensive and open-hearted the consideration of differing opinions, the better positioned we are to assess the validity of the evidence.

If undue importance is given to the opinion of a single scholar, it stifles the process of evidence evaluation. This increases the likelihood of scientific errors persisting for generations, depriving people of correct knowledge for long periods.

This principle can be explained with numerous examples, but these are deliberately omitted. This is because certain scholarly errors become so enshrined in devotion that they are treated as part of belief. As a result, inviting reconsideration of such errors is often met with resistance.