Scientific Contradictions and the Epistemic Limits of Modern Empiricism: A Critical Realist and Theological Reinterpretation

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.