Modern science advances when people acknowledge the limits of existing knowledge. Instead of treating inherited explanations as final truths, researchers question established ideas, examine evidence and develop new theories. However, scientific knowledge also creates technological and political power. Therefore, we must ask whether the pursuit of knowledge always serves human interests.
Human beings have always tried to understand the world. Ancient civilizations developed sophisticated systems of astronomy, mathematics, medicine and philosophy.
Yet modern science introduced a distinctive intellectual attitude: the willingness to admit that important questions remain unanswered.
In Chapter 14 of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, Yuval Noah Harari describes this development as the discovery of ignorance.
His argument challenges a familiar assumption. Scientific progress does not begin with the belief that humanity already possesses the truth. It begins with the recognition that existing explanations may be incomplete or wrong.
But does admitting ignorance automatically make a society more rational? And what happens when scientific knowledge becomes a source of power?
Why Does Modern Science Begin with the Admission of Ignorance?
Harari identifies ignoramus, a Latin expression meaning “we do not know,” as a central principle of modern science.
This principle changes the relationship between knowledge and authority.
In systems that rely heavily on established tradition, people may treat inherited explanations as sufficient answers. Modern science, by contrast, accepts that even widely respected theories can face revision.
This does not mean that scientific research rejects all previous knowledge. Researchers examine earlier findings, test existing explanations and build new arguments from evidence.
However, they do not consider any theory permanently immune to criticism.
Consequently, modern science depends on intellectual uncertainty.
A researcher who acknowledges an unanswered question creates an opportunity for investigation. A researcher who assumes that every important answer already exists closes that opportunity.
How Does Modern Science Distinguish Evidence from Belief?
Harari identifies observation and mathematics as central elements of modern scientific research.
Scientists collect empirical evidence and use mathematical tools to identify relationships within that evidence.
This method does not guarantee that every conclusion will prove correct. Instead, it offers a systematic way to test explanations and revise them when new findings emerge.
For example, an astronomical theory must confront observations of celestial objects. A biological explanation must account for evidence from living organisms and their physical processes.
Scientific arguments therefore depend on more than the authority of the person who presents them.
Nevertheless, evidence does not interpret itself. Researchers choose questions, develop methods and decide which observations deserve attention.
Thus, scientific objectivity requires not only accurate measurement but also critical examination of the assumptions that guide research.
Is Scientific Knowledge Valuable Because It Is True or Because It Works?
This question leads to one of the most provocative parts of Harari’s discussion.
He examines the relationship between scientific knowledge and practical power. Modern societies often value scientific theories because they enable people to predict events, develop technologies and transform their surroundings.
Francis Bacon expressed a related idea in his famous formulation: “knowledge is power.”
The practical success of modern science has strengthened its social authority. Modern medicine, transportation, communication and industrial production all demonstrate the consequences of scientific research.
However, practical usefulness and truth are not identical concepts.
A model may help someone make accurate predictions within a limited context while still failing to describe the full complexity of reality.
Therefore, usefulness alone cannot settle every philosophical question about truth.
Science needs both explanatory rigor and practical testing. Otherwise, technological success may overshadow the intellectual limits of a theory.
Can Modern Science Remain Independent of Political and Economic Interests?
Harari argues that scientific research requires substantial resources.
Laboratories, equipment, specialized personnel and long-term investigations all demand financial support. Governments, businesses, foundations and private donors often determine which research projects receive funding.
This relationship creates an important tension.
Scientific research can expand human knowledge, but financial and political institutions influence its priorities.
A government may invest in military technology. A pharmaceutical company may prioritize profitable medical research. A private foundation may support a particular field because it considers that field socially important.
These decisions do not automatically invalidate scientific findings. However, they can influence which questions researchers investigate and which problems receive less attention.
For this reason, scientific independence requires more than individual honesty. It also depends on transparent institutions, critical debate and the freedom to challenge powerful interests.
Does Scientific Progress Always Mean Human Progress?
Modern science has expanded human capabilities enormously. Yet increased technical power does not automatically produce greater moral responsibility.
The same scientific knowledge can support medical treatment or destructive weapons. New technologies can improve communication while creating new forms of surveillance.
Moreover, technological development may distribute benefits unevenly.
Some communities gain access to advanced medical care, education and infrastructure, while others remain excluded from these opportunities.
Therefore, the question is not simply whether science advances. We must also examine who benefits from its discoveries and who bears the costs.
Key Takeaways
- Modern science begins by acknowledging the limits of existing knowledge.
- Observation and mathematics help researchers test explanations.
- Scientific usefulness and philosophical truth do not always coincide.
- Political and economic institutions influence research priorities.
- Technological progress does not automatically guarantee moral or social progress.
Conclusion: Should We Trust Science or Question It?
The strength of science lies partly in its ability to question itself.
Scientific knowledge does not require unconditional loyalty. It requires evidence, criticism and a willingness to revise established conclusions.
However, scientific institutions also operate within political and economic systems. Their priorities can reflect interests that extend beyond the pursuit of knowledge.
Consequently, a mature understanding of science requires two forms of critical thinking: we should examine scientific claims through evidence, and we should examine the institutions that direct scientific research.
The admission of ignorance remains an intellectual strength. Yet it also creates a responsibility: we must continue asking difficult questions, especially when scientific power affects the lives of millions.
References
Harari, Yuval Noah. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Signal, 2014. Chapter 14, “The Discovery of Ignorance”; sections “Ignoramus,” “The Scientific Dogma,” “Knowledge is Power,” “The Ideal of Progress,” and “The Sugar Daddy of Science.”
Further reading: Does History Have a Direction? Why Cultures Never Remain the Same
About the Author
