Authors : Sixbert Sangwa; Placide Mutabazi

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 6 - June

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/4urvhr4s

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25jun1718

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.

Abstract : Purpose This study interrogates the self-contradicting character of modern science, asking why equally rigorous inquiries so often yield mutually incompatible conclusions.[2]  Design/Methodology/Approach We conduct a comparative analysis of ten emblematic case studies drawn from physics, cosmology, neuroscience, climate science, nutrition, psychology, and artificial intelligence. Each vignette is interpreted through a tripartite philosophical lens—Popperian falsifiability, Kuhnian paradigm dynamics, and Feyerabendian epistemological anarchism—supplemented by a critical-realist theological framework. [3]  Findings The analysis uncovers a four-level typology of contradictions: observational, predictive, ontological, and methodological. Across domains, contradictions persist not as anomalies to be excised but as catalysts for progress, exposing the provisional and paradigm-laden nature of empirical “truth.” A biblical epistemic horizon— “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10)—further situates human inquiry within an economy of divine, rather than autonomous, truth. Synthesising these strands, we propose a critical-realist posture that affirms scientific utility while rejecting scientistic finality. [4]  Originality/Value The paper offers three novel contributions: (1) a cross-disciplinary typology that maps where and why contradictions arise; (2) an integrative philosophical-theological model that reconciles empirical fallibilism with metaphysical realism; and (3) practical recommendations for scholars, policymakers, and the public to cultivate epistemic humility without lapsing into relativism. By reframing contradiction as a virtue rather than a defect, the study enriches ongoing debates on science’s authority, limits, and moral orientation.

Keywords : Scientific Contradictions, Epistemic Limits, Paradigm Theory, Critical Realism, Theology and Science, Provisional Knowledge, Scientism Critique.

References :

1. Allis, C. D., & Jenuwein, T. (2016). The molecular hallmarks of epigenetic control. Nature reviews. Genetics, 17(8), 487–500. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2016.59
2. Anderson, C., Nugent, K., & Peterson, C. (2021). Academic Journal Retractions and the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of primary care & community health, 12, 21501327211015592. https://doi.org/10.1177/21501327211015592
3. Ananthaswamy, A. (2018, December 3). New quantum paradox clarifies where our views of reality go wrong. Quanta Magazine. https://www.quantamagazine.org/frauchiger-renner-paradox-clarifies-where-our-views-of-reality-go-wrong-20181203/
4. Andrews, E. D. (2023). How can we know anything at all? ChristianPublishers.org. https://www.christianpublishers.org/post/how-can-we-know-anything-at-all (accessed June 2025)
5. Barbour, I. G. (1997). Religion and science: Historical and contemporary issues. HarperCollins. https://archive.org/details/religionscienceh0000barb
6. Barbour, I. G. (2000). Religion in an age of science. HarperSanFrancisco. https://www.religion-online.org/book/religion-in-an-age-of-science/
7. Belluz, J. (2016, August 16). I asked 8 researchers why the science of nutrition is so messy. Here’s what they said. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/10760622/nutrition-science-complicated
8. Bhaskar, R. (2008). A Realist Theory of Science. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/A-Realist-Theory-of-Science/Bhaskar/p/book/9780415454940?srsltid=AfmBOorEeB9cZPu2JzxtHlqy8eM89ajHqYLR6vEDfA2frTJNtc2gnGF2&utm_source=chatgpt.com
9. Chalmers, D. J. (2012). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200-219. https://consc.net/papers/facing.pdf
10. Cheung, V., Maier, M., & Lieder, F. (2025). Large language models show amplified cognitive biases in moral decision-making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(25), e2412015122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2412015122
11. Devlin, H. (2017, May 3). Global warming 'hiatus' doesn't change long term climate predictions – study. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/may/03/global-warming-hiatus-doesnt-change-long-term-climate-predictions-study#:~:text=The%20slower%20rise%20in%20temperatures,predicted%20and%20what%20was%20observed
12. Duhem, P. (1954). The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory (P. P. Wiener, Trans.). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1906). https://archive.org/details/aimstructureofph0000duhe
13. Feyerabend, P. K. (1975).  Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, London: New Left Books. Second revised and enlarged edition 1988. Third revised and enlarged edition 1993. https://archive.org/details/againstmethodout00feye
14. Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interests (J. J. Shapiro, Trans.). Beacon Press. (Original work published 1968). https://archive.org/details/knowledgehumanin0000habe/page/6/mode/2up
15. Hilbert, D. (1984). On the infinite. In P. Benacerraf & H. Putnam (Eds.), Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings (pp. 183–201). chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171519.010
16. Holzmeister, F., Johannesson, M., Camerer, C. F., et al. (2025). Examining the replicability of online experiments selected by a decision market. Nature Human Behaviour, 9, 316–330. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02062-9
17. Hughes, A. L. (2012). The folly of scientism: Why scientists shouldn’t trespass on philosophy’s domain. The New Atlantis, (37), 32–50. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism#:~:text=answering%20them,%E2%80%9D
18. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
19. Mhlanga, A. (2025, in press). Post-COP28 science–policy frictions: Reconciling climate models and diplomatic narratives.
20. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2024). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (5th ed.). SAGE. https://ia803100.us.archive.org/0/items/spradleyanalisisdatakualitatifmodeletnografi/Matthew_Miles%2C_Michael_Hberman%2C_Johnny_Sdana-Qualitative_Data_Analysis__A_Methods_Sourcebook-Sage_%282014%29%5B1%5D.pdf
21. Kant, I. (1998). Critique of Pure Reason. (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804649 
22. Kuhn S. T. (2018). Karl Popper. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
23. Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. Viking Penguin. https://www.amazon.com/Singularity-Near-Humans-Transcend-Biology/dp/0143037889
24. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In Imre Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965 (pp. 91–196). chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171434.009
25. Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and Its Problems. Routledge. https://www.amazon.com/Progress-Its-Problems-Larry-Laudan/dp/0520037219?
26. MacIntyre, A. (2007). After Virtue (3rd ed.). University of Notre Dame Press. https://undpress.nd.edu/9780268035044/after-virtue/
27. Mullaney, L., Brennan, A., Cawley, S., O’Higgins, A. C., McCartney, D., & Turner, M. J. (2016). Relationship between fasting plasma glucose levels and maternal food group and macronutrient intakes in pregnancy. Nutrition & Dietetics, 73(4), 441–447. https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.12278
28. Oppenheim, J. (2023, December 4). New theory seeks to unite Einstein’s gravity with quantum mechanics. UCL News. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/dec/new-theory-seeks-unite-einsteins-gravity-quantum-mechanics
29. Pascal, B. (1670/1966). Pensées (A. J. Krailsheimer, Trans.). Penguin. https://www.amazon.com/Pensees-Penguin-Classics-Blaise-Pascal/dp/0140446451?
30. Plantinga, A. (2000). Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford UP.  https://doi.org/10.1093/0195131932.001.0001 
31. Polkinghorne, J. (2004). Theology in the Context of Science: On the Origins of Time and the Nature of History. Yale University Press.
32. Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books. https://philotextes.info/spip/IMG/pdf/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
33. Poulin, V. (2025, March 26). The Hubble tension. CERN Courier. https://cerncourier.com/a/the-hubble-tension/
34. Quine, W. V. O. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review, 60(1), 20-43. https://www.theologie.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-fbd6-1538-0000-000070cf64bc/Quine51.pdf
35. Redlinger, G. & de Jong, P. (2017, December 8). Broken symmetry: Searches for supersymmetry at the LHC [Feature]. ATLAS Experiment, CERN. https://atlas.cern/updates/feature/supersymmetry
36. Roberts, R. C., & Wood, W. J. (2007). Intellectual Virtues: An Essay in Regulative Epistemology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199283675.001.0001
37. Shipman, M. (2018, March 12). Study tackles neuroscience claims to have disproved ‘free will’. NC State News. https://news.ncsu.edu/2018/03/free-will-review-2018/
38. Simondon, G. (2020). Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information (T. Adkins, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1958). https://www.upress.umn.edu/9780816680023/individuation-in-light-of-notions-of-form-and-information/
39. The ENCODE Project Consortium. (2012). An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature, 489(7414), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11247
40. Torrance, T. F. (1980). Theological Science. Oxford University Press. https://archive.org/details/theologicalscien0000torr/page/n5/mode/2up
41. Tyson, A., & Kennedy, B. (2024, November 14). Public trust in scientists and views on their role in policymaking. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2024/11/14/public-trust-in-scientists-and-views-on-their-role-in-policymaking/
42. van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198244274.001.0001
43. Weinberg, S. (1989). The cosmological constant problem. Reviews of Modern Physics, 61(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1
44. Wikipedia contributors. (2023, October 19). Replication crisis. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

45. Zagzebski, L. T. (1996). Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press. https://archive.org/details/virtuesofmindinq0000zagz