Science, by its very nature, is involved in explanation. It is guided by the principle of cause and effect. It studies the effects and attempts to discover the cause. Sometimes the cause can't be verified through experience. So, many experiments are conducted and when there is a pattern that invariably occcurs, they attempt at an explanation that cannot be verified through experience. It takes on a theory status. The theory of evolution would be a perfect example which has a more explanatory power than the creation theory. Although a theory, the theory of evolution almost stands beyond reasonable doubt.
Philosophy, at least the conceptual type, dabbles with highly abstract concepts that cover a much broader scope than any science could conceive of. Philosophy is a level beyond science in that it investigates the undisclosed assumptions of all the sciences. For instance, science deals with being in particular like atoms, molecules, DNA, living organisms that scientists group into categories based on similar features. Philosophy, for its take, deals with metaphysics, the study of ultimate reality. Metaphysics studies Being in general, not any being in particular, but Being itself.
Whatever the case may be, both the conceptual type of philosophy and science focus their attention on concepts - an abstraction of beings.
While this approach towards reality has resulted in great discoveries (more so in science than in philosophy that has no way to verify its findings), this has led many educators and laypeople alike to believe that science, although imperfect, is the best approach in understanding the world in which we live. It would not only be treated as the best way, but also as the only way. This attitude is called scientism.
Scientism is not scientific. Its belief cannot be verified. But because it is a belief, a powerful belief that has taken hold of the minds of those in authority to make pronouncements about the nature of reality, it tends to overlook a very important aspect of reality - a reality of the Other, whose presence is in danger of being silenced.
The act of abstracting reality is older than scientism, but scientism has led people to believe that abstraction, meaning concepts do not just represent reality but are reality themselves.
In other words, we do not see Peter for who he is, but for what he is. The focus on Peter's whatness not only enables us to bundle him up with those with similarities; the focus on Peter's whatness blinds us to the fact that Peter is unique, a person, who, originally, is uncategorizable. An uncategorizable that is forced to fit into a category is silenced. It is murdering the who-ness of Peter. It flattens out the difference that makes Peter a very distinct presence. Categorizing Peter makes Peter invisible. The voice of the marginalized is nowhere to be heard. Since categorizing Peter is an act of abstraction, of thinking, and to view Peter only on that basis, abstraction is an act of violence. It de-faces the Other. It kills the Other. This is injustice.
I am not opposed to abstraction. Abstraction has been proven to be important in advancing our knowledge of reality.
But when we are dealing with persons, we should be ready to let go of concepts about Peter and encounter him for who he is. Abstraction is important in understanding Peter and the other for as long as we take into consider that Peter and the others are unique. When concepts do not serve Peter, then we should let go of those concepts. If law do not preserve Peter's otherness, his uniqueness, then those laws have to be re-evaluated.
There will always exist a dynamic struggle between conceptualization and the presence of the Other. Conceptualization is important, but they are deemed just for as long as it recognizes the Other, who exists beyond the law. Law, then exists to serve the Other. Not the other way around.
