Science Under Scrutiny — From Galileo to the Crisis of Consensus

Erwin Chargaff, one of the most significant biochemists of the twentieth century and a co-discoverer of DNA structure, wrote a sentence that still reverberates today: “What humanity was striving for when it embarked on the great adventure of science was to obtain a firm and true picture of nature. Instead, we are drowning in a jumble of the most minute specialized facts” (Chargaff, 1979, Das Feuer des Heraklit). Here was a scientist who took science at its word and concluded that it was not keeping its own promise. The disquiet that speaks through Chargaff’s words is not the resentment of an outsider. It is the diagnostic clarity of someone who was deep enough in the material to see what those still operating on the surface overlook.

Perhaps you know this feeling. You read news that invokes “science” and notice the word sounds strangely hollow. Not because you doubt knowledge itself, but because you realize that “science” has long ceased to denote a method and has become an authority instead. A currency of truth whose backing no one checks anymore. That diffuse sense that something does not add up has a philosophically precise reason. And that reason runs deeper than the question of whether individual studies were properly conducted.

How can science be criticized philosophically?

Philosophical critique of science is not directed against knowledge. It is directed against the confusion of method and worldview. Modern natural science is not merely a tool for investigating reality. It carries, often unconsciously, an entire interpretation of the world that is rarely identified as such. Jochen Kirchhoff put it this way: “Science had nothing to do with life in the first place. From the very beginning, science was seen as something separate — imposing an abstract grid onto reality. The world is treated as an object, and the living, which is also there, merely runs alongside, but it is never directly examined by science” (Kirchhoff, J., 2024, “Wissenschaft auf dem Prüfstand”).

This sentence describes not an oversight but a foundational decision. Galileo Galilei, widely regarded as the founder of modern natural science, made this decision when he elevated the method of mathematical abstraction to the sole valid form of knowledge. What is not measurable falls outside the domain of science. Color, scent, taste, vitality: all of these were declared merely subjective sensations, irrelevant to knowledge of the real. Nature, which the Greek term physis still encompassed as origin, telos, process, and essence of process, was reduced to what can be formalized mathematically.

This was a liberation from scholastic dogmatism. At the same time, it was a narrowing whose full magnitude only becomes visible centuries later. Lewis Mumford described it in his work The Myth of the Machine as a turning point (cf. Mumford, 1967) at which the investigation of the physical world took precedence over the investigation of the nature of life. What Aristotle still conceived as a unity — living organisms endowed with autonomy and inner directedness — was dismantled into calculable parts.

What is the problem with scientific consensus?

Scientific consensus functions, on the surface, like a quality assurance system. Hypotheses are proposed, experiments conducted, results published, reviewed by peers, and — if confirmed — incorporated into the accepted body of knowledge. Peer review, reproducibility, falsifiability. The terms are familiar.

What gets overlooked is the structure behind the structure. Consensus is not the product of free inquiry alone. It is embedded in power relations, career mechanisms, and institutional pressures that promote certain questions and systematically exclude others. Anyone who wants to publish must get past the gatekeepers of the major journals. Anyone who wants to survive there must operate within the accepted paradigm. Anyone who questions the paradigm itself finds neither publication venues nor funding.

This is not a conspiracy narrative. It is a structural description that philosophers of science from Thomas Kuhn to Paul Feyerabend have analyzed in detail. The question is: What remains unthought when consensus itself becomes the standard of truth? Nietzsche captured this dynamic in his diagnostic vocabulary of decadence: “One confuses cause and effect” (Nietzsche, 1889, Twilight of the Idols). Consensus is not true because many have agreed on it. The agreement, in itself, says nothing about the matter at hand.

What Jochen Kirchhoff describes as “methodical atheism” (Kirchhoff, J., 2024) names the hidden premise more precisely: the individual researcher may be personally devout, may harbor an intuition of meaningful connections, may bring a feeling for the vitality of nature. Within the scientific method, none of this counts. It is a private affair. Science thereby becomes a system that systematically separates knowledge from the question of meaning. What remains is, in Kirchhoff’s words, a “mathematical nihilism”: everything becomes a measurable quantity that can be adjusted up or down.

Added to this is what Kirchhoff calls “methodical geocentrism” (Kirchhoff, J., 2024): the unspoken assumption that the laws measured on Earth apply in equal measure everywhere in the cosmos. The conditions of the terrestrial laboratory are silently elevated to the standard of the universal. What counts as established here is projected onto stars billions of light-years away, without the basis of that projection ever being questioned. This is not an empirical finding but a metaphysical decision disguised as self-evidence.

Galileo’s legacy and the exclusion of the living

The mechanical worldview that emerged from Galileo’s methodological decision conceives the nexus of nature as a machine from the outset. First the clockwork, then the steam engine, finally the computer. Whatever technology is most advanced at the time serves as the analogy for nature. The living is not recognized as a reality in its own right but is interpreted as a particularly complex mechanism that needs to be further dismantled.

Chargaff’s disquiet was aimed precisely at this. He called it the “shabbiness of the questions” with which science approaches the living. The primitiveness of the questions being asked, he said, was unspeakable. “The incomprehensible mystery, the living thing” is fundamentally missed by a science that knows only dissective analysis. His verdict was sharp: “Most of what they claim to have found is half falsified and half botched” (Chargaff, 1979).

This is not anti-scientific polemic. It is the lament of a researcher who knows the difference between knowledge and enterprise. Between the question that addresses the thing itself and the pressure to produce that demands ever more publications without the fundamental questions becoming any clearer for it. Chargaff himself noted: “There comes a point at which one must conclude that the sciences continue to exist solely for the purpose of feeding scientists” (Chargaff, 1979).

What he was pointing to is a dynamic that operates more forcefully today than ever before. The enormous swelling of the natural sciences, the ever-growing influx of scientists, the avalanche of publications: all of this has changed the character of science from the ground up. The specialist no longer understands the colleague in the neighboring laboratory. A coherent picture of nature cannot be won from this fragmentation. What Chargaff called “nature imperialism” has produced a splintering in which the whole is irrevocably lost from view.

Why does science need philosophical reflection?

The philosophical question behind all of this can be formulated as follows: Can a method that excludes the living from its domain yield knowledge that does justice to the living? If the answer is no — and the ecological crisis, the unchecked expansion of technology, and the crisis of meaning in modern societies suggest as much — then correcting individual results is not enough. The method itself is under scrutiny.

What can be described here as pathogenesis rather than progress means precisely this: the possibility that what is celebrated as the advancement of knowledge is simultaneously a symptom of advancing alienation. It is not the intelligence of scientists that is in question, not their good will, not the precision of their instruments. What is in question is the untested premise that the world as a whole is an object of mathematical analysis, and nothing beyond.

Spengler recognized in this the “rosy optimism of progress” that covers over “the fact of the transience of all that lives” instead of facing it (Spengler, 1922, Der Untergang des Abendlandes). Mumford described the “megamachine” whose “myth” consists in being held invincible and ultimately beneficial — a belief that “to this day holds captive the rulers of the megamachine and the mass of its victims alike” (Mumford, 1977, Der Mythos der Maschine). Nietzsche named the basic pattern in his doctrine of decadence: a confusion of symptom and remedy, in which the methods of cure “do not alter the course of decadence” but merely narcotize (Nietzsche, 1888, Der Fall Wagner).

These voices come from different centuries and different traditions of thought. What unites them is the diagnostic insight that the crisis of science is not a technical question that can be resolved through better methods, stricter peer reviews, or more research funding. It is a crisis of our very relation to the world — of the way human beings relate to nature, to the cosmos, to themselves.

The other natural science — and why it demands more

Chargaff was once asked whether a different natural science could exist. His answer was sobering: No. At most, Giordano Bruno. Back, that is, to before the Galilean turning point, to a thinker for whom the celestial bodies were living macro-organisms embedded in an ensouled cosmos. Bruno wrote: “Those who cannot see or acknowledge that the world, with all its members, is animate seem to me to diminish the divine excellence and grandeur of this mighty organism” (Bruno, 1584, De l’infinito, universo e mondi). And then Chargaff added: “If we want to save that and save ourselves as human beings, we would have to let the whole thing go.”

“Letting the whole thing go” does not mean laziness of thought. It means the willingness to abandon a research approach that systematically misses the living because it excluded it from the start. It means ceasing to treat nature as an object to be dissected and dominated, and instead recognizing it as a living nexus to which the human being itself belongs. Naturphilosophie in the tradition of Schelling, Goethe, and Kirchhoff does not offer a replacement for empirical research but an expanded framework: one in which the measurable does not have the last word and the living is recognized as a reality in its own right.

Goethe practiced this other science: a contemplation of nature that lets the phenomenon stand in its wholeness instead of dismantling it. His Zur Farbenlehre (Goethe, 1810), his Metamorphose der Pflanzen (Goethe, 1790), his concept of the Urphanomen testify to a research approach that takes form seriously as an object of knowledge. The question that stands at the end of this path is not a purely academic one. It touches how you interpret your own relationship to the world. Whether you trust the feeling that nature is more than the sum of its calculable parts. Whether you allow that knowledge can also begin where method ends. Whether you understand the restlessness that may have brought you here as the beginning of a different way of thinking — one that does not extract the human being from the very nexus it is trying to understand.

If these questions occupy you — not as a theoretical problem but as a lived tension between what you know and what you sense — then this is not a lack of rationality. It is the point at which philosophy begins. Not as a counter-position to science, but as the space in which the unexamined presuppositions of science itself become an object of thought. In philosophical consultation, exactly this happens: a thinking that does not begin with answers but with the question of whether the questions have been rightly posed.

Sources

• Bruno, G. (1584). De l’infinito, universo e mondi. Venice.
• Chargaff, E. (1979). Das Feuer des Heraklit. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
• Goethe, J. W. von (1790). Die Metamorphose der Pflanzen. Gotha: Ettinger.
• Goethe, J. W. von (1810). Zur Farbenlehre. Tubingen: Cotta.
• Kirchhoff, G. (2024). Science Under Scrutiny — From Galileo to the Crisis of Consensus. YouTube: Manova [I3tHgdpqlBA].
• Kirchhoff, J. (2024). Wissenschaft auf dem Prüfstand. YouTube: Jochen Kirchhoff — In Memoriam [I3tHgdpqlBA].
• Mumford, L. (1967). The Myth of the Machine: Technics and Human Development. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
• Mumford, L. (1977). Der Mythos der Maschine. Frankfurt: Fischer Alternativ.
• Nietzsche, F. (1888). Der Fall Wagner. Leipzig: Naumann.
• Nietzsche, F. (1889). Gotzen-Dammerung. Leipzig: Naumann.
• Schelling, F. W. J. (1797). Ideen zu einer Philosophie der Natur. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel.
• Spengler, O. (1922). Der Untergang des Abendlandes. Munich: C. H. Beck.