The nineteenth century believed in science but the twentieth

"The nineteenth century believed in science but the twentieth century does not." These poignant words from Gertrude Stein illuminate a profound shift in the human relationship to knowledge, progress, and belief. The nineteenth century, a period of rapid scientific advancement, celebrated reason, rationality, and the power of the scientific method. It was an era of great faith in human ingenuity, where discoveries such as electricity, evolution, and the laws of motion were seen as milestones in mankind’s quest to understand the world. But as Stein observes, the twentieth century marks a turning point—when science, once held in reverence, began to be questioned, even doubted. Faith in the absolute power of science began to erode, and the worldview that had been so firmly rooted in scientific progress now faced a more complex and ambiguous future.

In the ancient world, Plato and Aristotle were the fathers of rational thought and philosophical inquiry. They believed that reason was the highest form of understanding, that through logic and observation, one could unlock the mysteries of the universe. Plato’s Allegory of the Cave highlighted the power of knowledge and how humanity must break free from the shadows of ignorance. Aristotle, meanwhile, sought to systematize knowledge, creating the foundations for science and ethics that would endure for centuries. In their time, philosophy and science were inseparable, and knowledge was seen as a sacred pursuit. Yet, even these great thinkers had their limitations. They could not foresee a time when humanity’s relationship with science would be as fraught with doubt and skepticism as it would become in the twentieth century.

Consider the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, a time of immense intellectual expansion. The scientific revolution had introduced new ideas about the nature of the world—Newtonian physics, heliocentrism, and empirical observation. There was a faith in human progress and the belief that science would continue to elevate mankind to greater levels of understanding. However, by the twentieth century, this unwavering belief in the ability of science to explain and control the world began to crack. The advent of quantum mechanics, relativity, and atomic power revealed the universe to be far more unpredictable and uncertain than anyone had imagined. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which asserts that the position and momentum of a particle cannot both be precisely measured at the same time, shattered the certainty that had long been the foundation of scientific thought.

The world wars of the twentieth century, particularly World War I and World War II, further tested humanity’s faith in science. While science had propelled advancements in medicine, technology, and weaponry, it had also played a role in unimaginable destruction. The development of the atomic bomb, an invention born of scientific research, changed the world forever, revealing the potential of science to both heal and destroy. The horrors of war, coupled with the dark side of technological progress, led to a growing skepticism about the promise of scientific advancement. The belief that science would continue to lead humanity toward a better future was no longer as certain. This disillusionment with the power of science is what Stein observes—the twentieth century witnessed a crisis of confidence, a growing sense that science, while incredibly powerful, did not hold the answers to all of life’s questions.

Stein’s words echo this crisis in the context of modernism and postmodernism—intellectual movements that questioned the very nature of truth and objective reality. Modernist thinkers, such as James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, and T.S. Eliot, rejected the certainty and structure that had been the hallmark of the nineteenth century. They saw the world as fragmented, subjective, and uncertain, and rejected the idea that science could offer a singular, definitive truth. In literature, art, and philosophy, the twentieth century embraced ambiguity, subjectivity, and the idea that there were no absolute truths. In this climate, science was no longer viewed as the ultimate source of knowledge; instead, it became just one of many ways to interpret the human experience. The faith in progress that had driven the nineteenth century was now met with suspicion, as humanity grappled with the complex, often destructive consequences of scientific discovery.

Yet, Stein's observation also calls attention to an enduring truth: science still provides answers to the "how" of the world, even if it cannot always answer the "why". The twentieth century, with its immense advancements in medicine, space exploration, and technology, shows that while the confidence in science may have been shaken, the power of science remains undeniable. The problem is not that science is wrong or that it lacks value; rather, it is that humanity must learn to balance reason with humility, recognizing that while science can answer the practical and the empirical, it cannot always provide the moral or spiritual guidance that humanity seeks. The mysteries of existence, the purpose of life, and the nature of consciousness remain questions that science cannot fully answer.

The lesson here is one of balance and reflection. Science will continue to guide us, answering many of our most pressing questions about the material world, but it is humanity’s search for meaning, purpose, and ethics that must guide the application of that knowledge. As we move forward, we must recognize the limits of scientific understanding while continuing to use it as a tool for progress. In doing so, we must also embrace other sources of knowledge—philosophy, art, spirituality—to address the questions of meaning that science cannot. Just as the nineteenth century held science in unwavering faith, we must now hold it with respect, tempered by the understanding that true wisdom comes from knowing what science can and cannot answer, and from embracing the mysteries of life that lie beyond its reach.