The scientific method is the universal way to learn more about the world’s truths. But what if it is flawed? After all, science shows us—through nearly every discovery—that the more we discover, the vaster our ignorance seems. In other words, the more we question, the more questions we want to ask. Furthermore, we find that universal truths can, in fact, have exceptions and each person has a unique brain that contemplates things divergently from anyone else. The amorphous, diverse nature of both the pool of knowledge and the minds cogitating this knowledge, suggests that perhaps universality in the scientific method should be discouraged.

Questioning the scientific method means questioning the nature of science itself, turning the argument in an epistemological direction. Epistemology, the study of how we acquire knowledge is fundamentally based on this idea: knowledge is formed by the overlap of what we believe and what is actually true.

This theory demonstrates the incomplete nature of our base of knowledge. Due to subjectivity and the nature of the human mind, each human being’s epistemological Venn diagram is filled with divergent beliefs while the truths side of the diagram is filled with many unknown truths. My method of knowledge acquirement, like that of each and every individual, is steeped in a deep, perceptive subjectivity. Upon further analysis, it would seem that science is substantially less concrete than previously considered. In fact, science is equally based in what we observe as it is in how we observe. So, then, if science, one of the most concrete fields of study is muddled down by subjectivity, how do we find the objective truths amid the mystery? Through all our endeavors towards truth, we discover two things: 1. The nature of truth itself 2. The way our minds perceive the truth. Perhaps sorting out what is true from what we believe to be true, (in other words, discovering the overlap)is the true purpose of scientific thought.