|
Have you ever wondered whether the things you know are indeed true? We, especially when at a young age, tend to take things at face value. We had, at one time or another, believed in ghosts and magic. Even the smartest people in the past had believed that the world was flat, or at the centre of the universe, or was magically created.
But that’s in the past no? We’re way too smart to be fooled again. Or are we? |
"He who chooses to know for the sake of knowing will choose most readily that which is most truly knowledge."
- Aristotle, "Metaphysics"
It’s one of the most basic questions an intelligent, sentient being can ask itself: how do we know what we know? In philosophical terms this is called epistemology or the theory of knowledge.
The science of epistemology, in its formal form, can be traced back to the Ancient Greeks, specifically to Plato. He had develop a method using reasoning and observations to deduce probable truths, and to compare them with the deduction of others. These are then discussed lengthy through a process now known as the Socratic Method, consisting of continuous questions and answers until, in theory, truth is revealed.
This type of knowledge is called a priori (from latin for ‘what is before’) or pure reasoning, it implies that reasoning is enough to determine truths. It’s a great way to discern understanding from things and concepts that are known, but what about things that the reasoning, debating philosophers do not know?
The science of epistemology, in its formal form, can be traced back to the Ancient Greeks, specifically to Plato. He had develop a method using reasoning and observations to deduce probable truths, and to compare them with the deduction of others. These are then discussed lengthy through a process now known as the Socratic Method, consisting of continuous questions and answers until, in theory, truth is revealed.
This type of knowledge is called a priori (from latin for ‘what is before’) or pure reasoning, it implies that reasoning is enough to determine truths. It’s a great way to discern understanding from things and concepts that are known, but what about things that the reasoning, debating philosophers do not know?
The more questions asked and answered, the closer you are to the truth. On paper at least...
As the limitations to this method is self-evident, his student, Aristotle added another aspect to this process: empiricism. Empiricism entails that knowledge of the unknown can only be derived from sense and experience which differs from pure reasoning, and thus is called a posteriori (‘what is after [experience]’). For example, how do we describe colour to someone who is blind from birth? Or music to the deaf? We can communicate with them, but we can never give them the knowledge of colour or music without their first-hand experience of those things. They could feign, approximate or even just believe in these things, but they can never know, in the fullest sense of the word.
Both of these views have a number of bigshot supporters during the days of the Age of Reason and Age of Enlightenment (17th and 18th century). The French philosopher Rene Descartes took the view of pure reasoning, using abstract knowledge such as mathematics and geometry as examples (he was a mathematician, so no surprise there). As if it’s a cliché, the English philosopher John Locke takes the countering view, arguing that every person is born in the state of tabula rasa (latin for ‘blank slate’), and not having even an initial concept of ‘concepts’ until they were experienced and/or taught.
It was at these times that the scientific method became formalized, through the synthesis of these two opposing views. It gave reasoning as the origination of possible knowledge, and experience to confirm or disprove it as fact. This led to the structured steps taken in scientific research: hypothesis, experiments (of which the root word is from ‘experience’), and theoretical confirmation.
It was at these times that the scientific method became formalized, through the synthesis of these two opposing views. It gave reasoning as the origination of possible knowledge, and experience to confirm or disprove it as fact. This led to the structured steps taken in scientific research: hypothesis, experiments (of which the root word is from ‘experience’), and theoretical confirmation.
A general model of the Scientific Method
|
Scientific inquiry can take different, but equally challenging paths, depending on research goals.
|
Hypotheses
Say that you have an idea that every living species originated from a single common ancestor, how do you justify this statement? How do you justify that it is fact or knowledge?
Initially you can’t, it’s just a guess, which is what a hypothesis is: a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For it to be scientifically probable, it must have been based on pre-existing knowledge or theories. In our example of a single common ancestor, it must be based on existing studies in zoology, paleontology or some other relevant and related branch of science.
Another attribute to a scientific hypothesis is that it must be verifiable. An unverifiable hypothesis, one that cannot be proven, is inherently unscientific, and flies in the face of the scientific method as well as epistemology. An example of this is the main deity of the Pastafarians, a parody religion. Pastafarians claim that an invisible, undetectable “Flying Spaghetti Monster” created the universe during a state of intoxication (which explains our less-than-perfect world). Needless to say due to the fact that the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster can neither be proven nor disproven does not make it a scientific hypothesis.
Say that you have an idea that every living species originated from a single common ancestor, how do you justify this statement? How do you justify that it is fact or knowledge?
Initially you can’t, it’s just a guess, which is what a hypothesis is: a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For it to be scientifically probable, it must have been based on pre-existing knowledge or theories. In our example of a single common ancestor, it must be based on existing studies in zoology, paleontology or some other relevant and related branch of science.
Another attribute to a scientific hypothesis is that it must be verifiable. An unverifiable hypothesis, one that cannot be proven, is inherently unscientific, and flies in the face of the scientific method as well as epistemology. An example of this is the main deity of the Pastafarians, a parody religion. Pastafarians claim that an invisible, undetectable “Flying Spaghetti Monster” created the universe during a state of intoxication (which explains our less-than-perfect world). Needless to say due to the fact that the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster can neither be proven nor disproven does not make it a scientific hypothesis.
Experiments
Thanks to Aristotle, the second part of the scientific method is experimentation. Back to our common ancestor hypothesis, we can for instance, look at evidences in microbiology due to their rapid reproduction; or maybe the DNA of various species to get a picture of how they have drifted from one another; or to compare the anatomy of extant and extinct species to draw a path of descent.
Experiments must be strictly regulated to be accepted by the scientific community. In the most lenient standards, they must be conducted in an equitable view, while stricter standards called for the experimented to purposely disprove the hypothesis. This is to avoid confirmation bias – whereby the results are affected by one’s subjective notions, whether for or against the hypothesis.
Another aspect to note are double blind tests, which are deliberately designed the solve the above problem. Researchers are just like anyone else, and depending on their personality can be mad, bad or mistaken. Neither the research subjects nor the researchers are in control of the results, data is expected to be backed by paperwork, and all methods are to be described in exact.
Such severe standards are required to fulfill another requirement of the scientific method: reproducibility. One can make all kinds of claims, but if they cannot be proven at will time after time, its integrity – as well as that of the assertor – will not be accepted. Many pseudoscientific ‘theories’ fall flat due to this. In 1999, one Masaru Emoto claims that water retains the ‘memory’ of human emotions and is evident in the forms of ice crystals for each emotion, this of which is claimed to be one of the ‘proofs’ for homeopathic ‘medicine’ –his experiments failed the reproducibility requirement for obvious reasons.
Thanks to Aristotle, the second part of the scientific method is experimentation. Back to our common ancestor hypothesis, we can for instance, look at evidences in microbiology due to their rapid reproduction; or maybe the DNA of various species to get a picture of how they have drifted from one another; or to compare the anatomy of extant and extinct species to draw a path of descent.
Experiments must be strictly regulated to be accepted by the scientific community. In the most lenient standards, they must be conducted in an equitable view, while stricter standards called for the experimented to purposely disprove the hypothesis. This is to avoid confirmation bias – whereby the results are affected by one’s subjective notions, whether for or against the hypothesis.
Another aspect to note are double blind tests, which are deliberately designed the solve the above problem. Researchers are just like anyone else, and depending on their personality can be mad, bad or mistaken. Neither the research subjects nor the researchers are in control of the results, data is expected to be backed by paperwork, and all methods are to be described in exact.
Such severe standards are required to fulfill another requirement of the scientific method: reproducibility. One can make all kinds of claims, but if they cannot be proven at will time after time, its integrity – as well as that of the assertor – will not be accepted. Many pseudoscientific ‘theories’ fall flat due to this. In 1999, one Masaru Emoto claims that water retains the ‘memory’ of human emotions and is evident in the forms of ice crystals for each emotion, this of which is claimed to be one of the ‘proofs’ for homeopathic ‘medicine’ –his experiments failed the reproducibility requirement for obvious reasons.
Theory
The term ‘theory’ is unlike what most people believe. By colloquial definition, a theory is an idea which may or may not be backed by some clever reasoning. However, in scientific terms, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of the natural world that has been proven through repeated observation and experimentation. As scientific inquiry is a continuous process theories are challenged and tested again and again, and as more information and evidence are acquired, they are amended and improved to fit empirical observations.
It is considered intellectually dishonest to tamper with one’s data to fit a preexisting theory or one’s preconceived hypothesis. Similarly as well is to ignore negative results, or to cherry pick positive ones – to call these practices “frowned upon” is an understatement, especially in academia.
The term ‘theory’ is unlike what most people believe. By colloquial definition, a theory is an idea which may or may not be backed by some clever reasoning. However, in scientific terms, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of the natural world that has been proven through repeated observation and experimentation. As scientific inquiry is a continuous process theories are challenged and tested again and again, and as more information and evidence are acquired, they are amended and improved to fit empirical observations.
It is considered intellectually dishonest to tamper with one’s data to fit a preexisting theory or one’s preconceived hypothesis. Similarly as well is to ignore negative results, or to cherry pick positive ones – to call these practices “frowned upon” is an understatement, especially in academia.
Synthesis and Conflict
The Scientific Method provides an avenue to channel the best of the two theories of epistemology. Both reasoning and experimentation are used and will be used continuously with each successive discovery, resulting in a feedback loop of improving existing theories with new reasoning backed by new evidences from experimentation.
Science therefore is a process and had never claimed to hold the final truth, unlike dogma which insists on belief even if they contradict reason and evidence. There are those who see science as ‘incomplete’ due to the limited mental faculties of mere mortals, and the scientists simple answer would be that fictional characters have no faculties at all.
We will address this conflict in a future article. Until then, as we say here at IFSA, science marches on!
The Scientific Method provides an avenue to channel the best of the two theories of epistemology. Both reasoning and experimentation are used and will be used continuously with each successive discovery, resulting in a feedback loop of improving existing theories with new reasoning backed by new evidences from experimentation.
Science therefore is a process and had never claimed to hold the final truth, unlike dogma which insists on belief even if they contradict reason and evidence. There are those who see science as ‘incomplete’ due to the limited mental faculties of mere mortals, and the scientists simple answer would be that fictional characters have no faculties at all.
We will address this conflict in a future article. Until then, as we say here at IFSA, science marches on!
Ponder this
Pick a current scientific theory, and trace back their origins from previous obsolete theories. How did the discoveries throughout the ages justify its current form? What are the experiments involved throughout their progression?
What are the limits of an exclusively a priori or a posteriori approach versus modern Scientific Method?
Pick a current scientific theory, and trace back their origins from previous obsolete theories. How did the discoveries throughout the ages justify its current form? What are the experiments involved throughout their progression?
What are the limits of an exclusively a priori or a posteriori approach versus modern Scientific Method?
Discuss
Give examples of non-disprovable hypotheses. What are their weaknesses? Should they be considered valid due to the inability to disprove them?
How do you improve on the hypotheses so that they can be proved or disproved? Give examples of experiments that can prove or disprove your improved hypotheses. Try using a priori reasoning to justify your answers.
Further readings
Epistemology, at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
A priori and a posteriori, the two, formerly conflicting methods to epistemology. At the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Rene Descartes and John Locke, the two principal champions of a priori and a posteriori epistemology, respectively.
Scientific Method, at RationalWiki.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster, an example of a non-disprovable hypothesis.
