How can science have been turned into a religion today (eg. cladistics and particle physics), about a century after it was falsified as a such (ie, with the formulation of Russell’s paradox)? This process is more surprising given that also Einstein’s realism was falsified about 30 years later, and quantum physics (in the form of instrumentalism) won the battle with realism thereafter, and Nazism’s realism (ie, race biology) also was defeated in the Second World War?
Is there a kidnapping attempt by realists of the concept “science” going on? Are realists trying to reclaim by force what they lost by reason? Can they not bow their heads for reality’s incomprehensibility instead of battling against facts? Science that contradicts facts (like “scientific realism”) can of course not be called science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”), because if knowledge does not have to agree with facts, then “knowledge” is synonymous with “statement”. Without the additional criterion that scientific statements also shall agree with facts, science decays into mere conceptualization (which Russell’s paradox thus shows is paradoxically contradictory).
After the formulation of Russell’s paradox, we can understand that science is not about understanding reality, but about modeling reality to predict and manipulate it (ie, instrumentalism). Russell’s paradox showed that “the true nature” of reality is inaccessible to us, by showing that it is in fact a paradox, because a paradox is contradictory and can thus not be real. If it could be real (which cladists and particle physicists believe, assert, and even claim to have verified empirically), then science would decay into a triviality, because then facts would not be different from fiction. The fact that facts are different from fiction thus falsifies the idea that reality is comprehensible (ie, what cladists and particle physicists believe, assert, and even claim to have verified empirically), but does instead support the logical conclusion that reality is incomprehensible (by being a paradox).