An Intellectual Exchange

classical physics. This impacted the principles of argument in science. This discovery strengthened the significance of the inferential argument. Scientists now accept that an inferential argument is as valid as a direct argument based on direct observation. We can say that the history of scientific knowledge can be divided into two different phases—the classical science phase and the quantum physics phase. In the classical science phase, scientific knowledge was confined to that portion of the material world that was observable and measurable. And so, it was held that only those things had an actual existence that were physically observable by man, while anything that could not be so observed (like God, the soul, the Hereafter, etc.) had no actual existence. For proponents of this way of thinking, the only valid argument was the direct argument, which was demonstrable in material terms. However, the situation changed after the atom split in the quantum physics phase. After the splitting of the atom, matter as a solid substance disappeared. The micro subatomic world replaced it beyond the atomic world, where everything was reduced to unseen waves (of electrons). These waves were themselves neither measurable nor observable. Only their effect (in the form of heat) could be observed and measured. This change in knowledge compelled scientists and thinkers to revise their logical criteria. It has now become accepted that an inferential argument is as valid as a direct one. Present-day science includes many things in its ambit (such as electrons, the law of gravity, X-rays, etc.) that are non-