If the origin of the universe is described by mathematical laws, we can ask whether mathematics existed before the universe itself. If so, where did it exist, and in what sense? Such questions take us beyond the boundaries of empirical science, since mathematical models allow us to describe processes within the universe but do not, by themselves, prove that mathematical laws existed independently of it. This is where the boundary between scientific inquiry and philosophical speculation about the nature of reality emerges.
We tend to regard matter as the foundation of reality and assume that everything that exists is made of substance. However, modern physics describes matter very differently from how we perceive it in everyday life: atoms consist almost entirely of empty space, and elementary particles do not behave like tiny solid objects. This means that our familiar understanding of the material world differs significantly from its scientific description.
Scientific knowledge relies on evidence and testable hypotheses, yet its foundations include basic assumptions that cannot be ultimately justified by science itself. We trust the methods of inquiry, logic, and principles on which scientific research is built, even though we cannot prove their absolute reliability without relying on other assumptions. This does not mean that science is equivalent to faith: its conclusions are supported by experiments, observations, and independent verification. However, an element of trust remains at the foundation of scientific inquiry, namely, trust in the very principles that allow us to consider the knowledge we obtain reliable.
Examples:
- Mathematics: Foundational axioms that are accepted without proof within a given system.
- Physics: The assumption that the laws of nature discovered in the observable part of the universe also apply beyond it.
- Chemistry: Reliance on models of atomic structure that explain the properties of matter, even though we cannot perceive atoms directly in the same way we perceive ordinary objects.
- History: The reconstruction of past events based on documents and archaeological findings, whose reliability and completeness cannot be verified in every detail.
- Cosmology: Models of the early universe based on observations and mathematical frameworks that cannot be tested by directly reproducing the universe’s initial conditions.
Scientific knowledge is developed through complex research, data processing, and the interpretation of results. Most people lack the knowledge, equipment, and resources needed to independently verify scientific claims and reproduce the entire process from the original data to the final conclusions. As a result, much of what we consider scientifically established fact is accepted on the basis of trust in experts, scientific institutions, and recognized research methods, rather than through personal verification. Thus, even scientific knowledge based on evidence remains, to a large extent, a matter of trust for non-specialists.
Scientific research depends not only on evidence, but also on the conditions in which scientists work. Funding, professional reputation, and opportunities to publish results influence their careers. This does not mean that research is necessarily unreliable, but it illustrates why potential conflicts of interest should be taken into account.
People may evaluate the same claim differently depending on who makes it. If it comes from a renowned scientist, they may accept it immediately, while the words of an unknown person may require additional evidence. However, the authority of the speaker does not, in itself, prove the truth of what they say.
A person may be an authority in one field and be wrong in another. Their reputation and professional achievements do not make every statement they make correct. Therefore, it is important to evaluate not only who is speaking, but also the evidence they provide.
A person may demand evidence from religion while accepting scientific claims without examining their justification. At the same time, they may be convinced that their own worldview is based exclusively on facts. Critical thinking requires examining the foundations of both our own beliefs and those of others with equal scrutiny.
Modern humans depend on the knowledge of others in almost every aspect of life. We cannot independently verify how a power plant operates, examine the composition of every medication, or recheck every scientific study. Therefore, rationality does not mean trusting no one, but understanding the grounds and limits of our trust.
People often confuse trust in scientific knowledge with understanding it. We accept scientific claims because we trust scientists and see the results of technological advances, yet we cannot independently verify most of this knowledge. It is therefore important to distinguish between what we genuinely understand, what has been supported by research, and what we simply believe based on what others tell us.
People often believe scientific claims because they trust scientists. But trusting a scientist does not mean understanding why their claim is true. It is important to distinguish between what we genuinely understand and what we accept on trust based on what others tell us.
A person’s scientific worldview begins to take shape in childhood through education, culture, and the surrounding environment. As we acquire knowledge, we also absorb ways of explaining reality that we rarely question. Therefore, a person’s understanding of the world depends not only on their own investigations, but also on the system of knowledge within which they grew up.
People often believe that they think rationally, while others simply have faith in their beliefs. But how do they know that their own views are truly based on facts? Critical thinking requires examining not only the beliefs of others, but also our own.
Reification is the process by which people come to perceive socially constructed rules, categories, and ideas as objective features of the world that exist independently of human beings. For example, people may believe that one profession is inherently prestigious while another is not, forgetting that these perceptions of professional status have been created and reinforced by society.
Legitimation is the process through which society explains and justifies why certain rules, norms, and institutions are considered valid, justified, and worthy of acceptance. For example, compulsory education is legitimized by the argument that it provides children with knowledge, helps them socialize, and prepares them for adult life.
Typification is the process of grouping people, objects, and phenomena into categories based on certain characteristics. For example, we classify people as successful or unsuccessful, intelligent or stupid, creative or uncreative. These categories help us make sense of the world around us, but they can oversimplify reality and lead to the formation of stereotypes.
Our identity is not defined by a single, unchanging story about ourselves. We can question our beliefs, reinterpret past experiences, and develop new narratives about who we are and who we can become.
Language can both limit and expand our thinking. By reframing a problem, we can see it from a different perspective and discover new ways to solve it.
What seems natural is not always inherent, it is often the result of social and cultural influences. Ideas about a normal life, masculinity, and success are shaped by society and vary across cultures.
Our perception is not neutral. We see the world through learned categories, beliefs, and familiar ways of interpreting what happens around us.
Reality is sustained by narratives, the stories we tell ourselves and others. They help us explain who we are, why we act the way we do, and what happens to us. For example, the narrative “I must always do the right thing” can influence a person’s decisions, their attitude toward their own mistakes, and how they perceive others.
Reality is shaped by language. Words do not merely describe the world — they influence how we perceive and interpret it. If we call someone “lazy,” we will interpret their actions differently than if we describe them as “tired” or “lacking motivation.”
Reality is socially constructed. What society considers normal, right, or natural is largely shaped by history and culture. Ideas about family, success, and justice are not universal, they vary across cultures and change over time.
People worship God out of self-interest. They know the concept of a particular religion, its conditions and promises, and believe in, love and pray to God because they expect to benefit from it. This idea, however, does not apply to a person’s search for an Absolute or a God through their own exploration of the world, outside the framework of religious doctrines.
The nature of emotions may be more complex than we commonly assume. Several hypotheses can be considered regarding their fundamental nature and existence:
- Biological processes — emotions as the result of interactions between the brain, the body, and the surrounding environment.
- Self-sustaining systems — emotions as processes capable of reinforcing and reproducing themselves, forming feedback loops in thought and behavior.
- Autonomous psychological structures — emotions as relatively independent formations capable of influencing a person beyond their conscious intentions.
- Independent entities — the hypothesis that emotions may possess a form of existence not reducible to human psychological or biological processes.
These possibilities are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Some are grounded in scientific understanding, while others remain philosophical speculations. It is still an open question whether our current understanding of emotions encompasses all possible forms of their existence.