|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE: If you are unfamiliar with Realistic
Epistemology (Theory of Knowledge), it is suggested
you read An Introduction to
Epistemology, or at least read What
is Philosophical Realism? before reading this
essay.
by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.
The Nature of Scientific Research Our word "science" comes from the Latin word scientia which means true and certain knowledge based on intrinsic evidence. Virtually all organized bodies of knowledge can legitimately called sciences. That is why we can define philosophy as a science. And that is why we can say that logic is a science. Sciences in general can be classified as to whether they are formal sciences or whether they are empirical sciences. Formal sciences are based primarily on deductive rules. Mathematics, logic, and library science are such formal sciences. On the other hand, empirical sciences are based primarily on empiricism and induction. Chemistry, biology, anthropology, and sociology are such empirical sciences. It is only with empirical science that we are concerned here. Characteristics and Assumptions of Empirical Science Empirical science has certain characteristics:
Empirical science makes certain assumptions:
Theory and Data in Empirical Science The fundamental components of modern science are (1) particular observations and experimental data, and (2) general concepts and theories. Theories are extremely important in empirical science, so let's take a brief look at what this means. A theory must be tested experimentally in order to be scientifically useful. A theory leads us to expect some observations and not others. This is a hypothetico-deductive view of science. If a theory or hypothesis is valid, then particular observational patterns are expected. The reasoning process taking place always involves a variety of background assumptions, auxiliary hypotheses, and rules of correspondence linking theoretical and observational terms and concepts. Scientists can never test a theory alone, but only as part of a network of theories. Furthermore, all data are theory-laden; there is no theory-free observation. This influences the selection of the phenomena to be studied, the choice of the variables to be considered significant, and the form of the questions asked, which then determines the kind of answers scientists receive. Scientific theories are reflected in the assumptions scientists make about the operation of the equipment used and about the language in which observations are reported. There are four criteria for assessing theories in normal scientific research:
Scientific theories have a hard job to do. They should define the relevancy of the facts involved; they should develop systems of classification and a structure of concepts; they should summarize facts; they should predict facts; and they should point out needs for further research. No wonder the empirical scientist's work is so difficult! Scientific Research There are various types of research activities undertaken by empirical scientists. A few of them will be described here so you'll have some acquaintance with the diverse activities scientists are involved in. The purpose of analytical research is to derive relationships within a deductive system. It is deductive, mathematical, historical, philosophical, legal, and/or linguistic. This is not the primary type of research used in most of the empirical sciences, but it does serve an important purpose nevertheless. Analytical research points out assumptions and possible consequences of proposed changes. It is especially useful in establish criteria for the evaluation of an innovation. Examples of analytical research include the analysis of data through statistical procedures, the analysis of language through grammar and linguistics, and the analysis of assumptions and implications through logical and philosophical procedures. The purpose of descriptive research is to describe existing conditions. It includes correlations, surveys, case studies, direct observation, cross-cultural studies, and growth studies. Sometimes such research describes currently existing conditions so that they can be modified later. Descriptive research is not the primary type of research used in most of the empirical sciences dealing with the physical world, but it is an important type of research in those empirical sciences dealing with the social world, such as anthropology, sociology, and political science. The Case Study: A case study is any relatively detailed description of a single person, event, institution, or community. Anecdotal studies are a type of this sort of research. This type of research has its limitations. Often it is difficult to determine which factors, historical or contemporary, are relevant to the matter or issue under investigation. There has also been a tendency in this type of research to select convenient cases rather than those which can either yield or test hypotheses. Studies into incest and child molesting are examples. The Sample Survey: The sample survey attempts to describe population characteristics by selecting an unbiased sample and generalizing the results of the sample to the population from which it is drawn. The survey may try to determine attitudes or opinions. An attitude is the degree of positive or negative affect associated with some psychological object. On the other hand, the survey may attempt to determine questions of fact or information. The usual instruments used are the interview and the questionnaire. Correlational Studies: Correlational studies show how two or more variables are related to each other. These studies are also used for prediction. Sometimes the public confuses correlations with causes. The great debate over smoking tobacco is an example. It is so easy to go from saying, "Smoking cigarettes is correlated with lung cancer" to "Smoking cigarettes is the cause of lung cancer." A correlation is not a cause, so it would be incorrect to make this transition. If, however, it is shown conclusively that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, then one would not say the two are related by correlation, but by a causal relationship. Developmental studies have become very important in the behavioral sciences and the health sciences. There are two methods.
This sort of research has become important especially in the science of anthropology. Different cultures or societies are studies and then compared to one another to see the similarities and differences. A great deal of the work performed by Dr. Margaret Mead was of this type. This is the major sort of research performed by the empirical sciences, especially those dealing with the physical world such as chemistry, physics, biology, and medical science. Experimental research involves the manipulation and control of independent variables, the consistent control of observations, and the attempt to draw conclusions regarding relationships between independent variables and dependent variables. The independent variable is the variable being manipulated by the researcher. The dependent variable is what happens or changes as a result of such manipulation. Experimental research is particularly valuable to test causal relationships. It is useful in comparing experimental groups with non-experimental groups by systematically varying the conditions of the experiment. In this way, the real effect of a proposed innovation can be shown. Medical science uses this method most of the time to test drugs and innovative medical procedures. The Problem of Evidence The empirical sciences use evidence as the foundation for scientific knowledge. Evidence is sometimes confused with "proof," but these are two quite different things. A "proof" results from a proper deductive argument wherein, if the premises of the argument are true and the rules of logic are correctly followed, a conclusion that is "proved" follows by necessity. It is evidence, however, that we are concerned with here. We can generally consider evidence as the light of truth shining into the mind and making it see. It is the understandable object or thing as clearly known. We have already seen that sometimes evidence is immediate and requires no thinking out or act of reasoning through which it can be made to appear. An immediately evident truth is called self-evident. Most of the time, however, truth does not immediately appear and must be sought by other means. When we have to seek out truth through the act of reasoning, it is called mediate evidence. To be of any value to us, evidence must be objective. It must not be just a feeling, or just a particular point of view, or just a matter of personal taste. In other words, it must not be subjective. Objective evidence is the criterion of truth, the ultimate basis of certitude. There are two avenues by which we can find evidence: the physical senses and the intellect. These are the sources of truth and certitude. Rightly used, the senses are infallible. They are rightly used only when all these requirements are observed:
When the above requirements are met, the senses can be the source of valid evidence and can be the remote source of intellectual certitude. The second factor is the human intellect. The intellect uses ideas to form judgments. Judgments are used in the process of reasoning. If our ideas are legitimately derived from sense knowledge, then our ideas are reliable and can be used to form judgments which express truth with certitude. In judging, the intellect accepts the evidence which the ideas afford. Now, the intellect can make erroneous judgments. These are made through accidental causes, the most important of which is presumption. Presumption leads the intellect to judge upon ideas that are obscure or leaps impatiently to a judgment without performing the work necessary to forming a true judgment. Erroneous judgments come, not from evidence, but from the lack of it or the failure to take it. Every scientist would like to establish all his knowledge by means of direct and irrefutable observation. This ideal, however, is impossible since human knowledge has expanded to the point where no one person can know everything there is to know and make personal investigations into every nook and cranny of reality. The professional scientist (and all of us, for that matter) must rely on the observation and testimony of others for much of the knowledge we gain and for the evidence and proofs which make that knowledge certain. Testimony Testimonial evidence is the information or evidence obtained from competent and reliable witnesses. These witnesses
When the above conditions are met, the testimonial evidence will lead to either certitude or a high degree of probability. We all know, of course, that witness testimony is not always perfect. Evidence of this type is based on perception, memory, and narration. The same witnesses to an auto accident may disagree as to what they perceived at the time. If a substantial length of time has elapsed since the witnesses actually saw the accident, any report they give may contain errors because of memory. Furthermore, not all witnesses are adept at expressing themselves well, so there may be fault found in their narrative of the circumstances of the accident. All testimony, then, must be submitted to a number of logical tests:
If the testimony of the witnesses survives these tests, it is reasonable to accept the testimony as true. Even so, however, a critical attitude should be maintained. Witness evidence surviving the above tests could still be shown later to be false or mistaken or unreliable. Circumstantial Evidence Sometimes it is not possible to obtain evidence through direct observation or direct testimony. Circumstantial evidence can sometimes show the way to truth. Circumstantial evidence includes those relevant circumstances or facts which enable us to draw legitimate inferences to some principal fact, wherein this fact then explains the existence and presence of these relevant circumstances or facts. Circumstantial evidence is really in the nature of a hypothesis. Some event has occurred and there must be some cause for the occurrence. Various possibilities are present as to the identity of this cause, but only one of these possibilities can actually be true. The logical procedure, therefore, is as follows:
Even so, circumstantial evidence is not fool-proof. It is much better if a number of significant and relevant circumstances unite in order to provide what is called convergent evidence. The greater the number and the more varied their character, the higher is the degree of probability that they contain the correct solution of the problem. It must be kept in mind that circumstantial evidence is exposed to the serious danger of abuse and misinterpretation. The more facts obtained the better, since the cumulative force of a number of convergent facts may point to one cause beyond a reasonable doubt. Logic and Evidence in the Courtroom The courtroom is where the art and science of logic and the presentation of evidence reaches an important zenith. It is here where life and liberty may be at stake. The legal system distinguishes between two degrees of proof:
The first degree of probability is sufficient in cases involving civil law, such as a lawsuit. The second degree of probability is required in cases involving criminal law, such as a trial for murder or rape. The evidence in a courtroom is usually classified as either testimonial or circumstantial. Testimonial evidence, as we have already seen, is the assertion of a human being as to the existence of the facts at issue. Circumstantial evidence is the production or citation of any other fact by inference from which the facts at issue are to be decided. The legal system has its own technical rules as to the admissibility of evidence. These rules have been formulated based on the cumulative experience of attorneys, jurists, and others involved in the legal system. These rules, however, have a logical foundation. A good prosecutor or defense attorney always has a basic knowledge of the science of logic. Probability Knowledge of the truth with certitude is the goal of science and philosophy. The two extremes of the knowledge spectrum are complete ignorance on the one end with complete certitude on the other. Between these two extremes is the realm of probability. Considered subjectively, probability is that state of the intellect in which the intellect decides for the truth of a judgment, but with the fear of the possibility of error. Considered objectively, probability is that condition or quality of things and facts, when present to the intellect, which enables it to decide for the truth of a judgment concerning these things and facts, but with the fear of the possibility of error. We can never know everything with certitude. In fact, most of our knowledge amounts to nothing more than probability. Science itself must be satisfied with approximations to truth and certitude. Most of the time we have only probable truth. Science makes use of various forms of argumentation and method which lead to results which are probably true. Two of these we have described above: testimony and circumstantial evidence. There are three additional methods which we will now discuss. Argument by Analogy Analogy refers to that reasoning process whereby the intellect concludes from the known characteristics of one thing or group of things to the unknown characteristics of another thing or group of things because of a recognized resemblance existing between them.
An inference by analogy, of course, only leads to a conclusion which is probable. It is not certain. If the things or facts compared were known to be perfectly alike, the conclusion could be certain. But this does not happen since no two things or facts are perfectly alike in all details. They always have differences, no matter how slight, as well as resemblances. Furthermore, not all resemblances are important; only significant resemblances have value. Significant resemblances are those which are essential or closely connected with the essence of the thing. A large number of significant resemblances will secure a greater degree of probability and bring the conclusion closer to certainty. But it will always remain difficult to distinguish between those resemblances which are significant and those which are insignificant. Therefore, an argument by analogy must be used with caution. Arguments Using Statistics Statistics are the classification and evaluation of group phenomena by an analysis of data supplied by enumeration and measurement. Most of us are bombarded with statistics. Scientific studies use statistics in evaluating and presenting their conclusions. Politicians use statistics to justify their proposed social policies. Even television commercials and magazine advertisements use statistics to pressure you to buy some product. In the empirical sciences, it is necessary to use instruments of measurement in order to eliminate as much as possible the personal biases and opinions of the individual observers. The instruments themselves are also subject to inaccuracy. Absolutely exact measurements are virtually impossible to obtain. Statistics then becomes a valuable tool for the scientist. Statistical methods are used to correct as far as possible any errors of observation or instrumentation. The biological and behavioral sciences study events and things which are highly variable and very complex. Statistical analyses are often the only reliable means to obtain scientific knowledge. So the value of statistics is great as long as these methods are used properly. The principle of inference in the statistical method is the inductive principle of concluding from the characteristics of a large number of parts to those of the whole. Of course, from a strictly logical point of view, it is impossible to argue from the part to the whole with logical necessity. What is true of some part need not be true of all. Properly used statistical methods can, however, get us around this problem. When the enumeration of events is practically complete, or when it can be fairly well determined that the characteristics in question are fundamental, such a conclusion carries with it a very high degree of probability. The following steps are necessary in making statistics:
The major problem encountered in the use of statistical methods seems to be in the interpretation of the data and the conclusions. If the investigation is to be of any real scientific value, the data must be correctly interpreted. Unfortunately, it is all too often the case these days that someone, for political or other reasons, will improperly use statistics to mislead or deceive. There is an old saying: "Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics." Statistical information needs to be challenged when any appearance of bias or prejudice or passion is evident. There are some dangers, then, of the statistical method that we should all become familiar with. Here are a few of them:
It should be kept in mind that some "scientific" studies in the past have been shown to be fraudulent. Others have been shown to contain errors. Fortunately, empirical science is self-corrective and any mistakes, deceptions, or misinterpretations are eventually found out. Abuses of the Scientific Method There are many ways in which the rules of logic are used to give the appearance of rigor to arguments which fail to prove their conclusions. The rules of logical thinking are a matter of habituation, not just of knowing what they are. If these rules of correct thinking are not adopted and used consistently by the participants in an argument, no amount of intellectual knowledge of them or commitment to them will have any value. If the rules of logical thinking are abused, then the participants in any debate are the losers. Since scientific methodology is also a child of ordinary logical analysis, any abuse of the scientific method in an argument should be taken seriously. There are many possible abuses of scientific method and they all can't be discussed here, nor should they be since this is an essay for the ordinary thinking person and not those involved in professional science. It might be useful, however, to take a look at a few of the more flagrant abuses which can occur. Reductionism Scientific method is largely concerned with the analysis of objects into their constituent elements. This fact leads to a common misconception that science identifies objects with their elements. This is not, however, true. Sciences analyzes objects into elements that are related to each other in certain ways, so that if the same elements were related in different ways they would constitute other objects. Two erroneous views result from this misunderstanding and need to be discussed briefly. Science Denies the Reality of the Connecting Relations This is simply not true. This erroneous view can occur in philosophical thinking as well as in science and even ordinary people are not exempt from sneaking this error into their ordinary thinking. This error is illustrated by instances of arguments which depend on regarding material objects as nothing but atoms, or a book as nothing but the words contained within it, or an oil painting as nothing more than the oil paints, colors, and canvas of which it is constituted. A common error of this type is to think of human society as nothing more than the individuals which constitute it. This latter case is often argued by those promoting an extreme autonomous individualism. It could just as well be argued that a family is nothing more than the individuals making it up, a mere collection of atoms having nothing essentially in common. This type of thinking means to reduce the whole to nothing more than its parts. This is why it's called reductionism. While it is true that science is concerned with analyzing objects into their constituent parts, it is not true that science identifies objects with their elements. What science does do, as was stated above, is analyze objects into elements related to or connected to each other in certain ways. A chair is composed of atoms, molecules of elements, wood, plastic, metal, or whatever. But these items are the same as the chair. The chair is, in a sense, more than just the items of which it is composed. The elements composing the chair are related or connected in a certain way. If this was not true, it would not be a chair but something else. Similarly, we say that a family is more than just the individuals making it up. A family is not just a group of individuals, but a group of individuals related or connected in a certain way. Without this relatedness or connection, a group of individuals would not constitute a family. The same thing can be said about a society. It is not just a group of individuals, but individuals related or connected to one another in a certain way. If they were not connected in this way, they would not constitute a society, but something else. Science is a Falsification of Reality Those who make the first error above, then usually go on to make this second error. What is the nature of reality? Many unthinking people, usually with a smattering of scientific information (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!) will argue that reality is nothing but atoms or recently, since quantum theory has become popular, reality is nothing more than quanta of energy or, some who have really gone off the deep end will argue that reality is really NOTHING, period. Empirical science, of course, does not falsify reality. The problem here is that the elementary "particles" which constitute larger material objects have a different mode of existence or mode of "being" than the common material objects of our ordinary experience. The mode of existence of the material constituents of a physical body cannot be the same when those constituents exist in isolation and when they enter into the constitution of an actual material body. So, when the chair, for instance, exists "actually" as one material being, the multitude of atoms and elementary particles which constitute it exist only "virtually." Since their existence is only virtual, so is their collective existence. What exists virtually has less reality than what exists actually. If the chair upon which we sit were to be destroyed and reduced to its material constituents, the elementary particles would assume the mode of actual existence as they do when they are isolated (as in a cyclotron). There is no conflict between the world of large material objects we directly experience and the world of subatomic particles which we do not directly experience, but know only by indirect means. The subatomic world is not the reality we experience as Reality. The physicist who describes this world of elementary particles is not describing Actual Reality. He is really describing a virtual reality which can, under the right circumstances, become an actual reality. We know that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. What we ordinarily mean by water is a fluid with definite, familiar properties, which are not those, however, of oxygen and hydrogen in isolation. It seems obvious that eight pounds of oxygen and one pound of hydrogen is not the same as nine pounds of water. But water can be broken down into these elements in these same proportions. This enables us to understand many of the perceptible characteristics of water. Water is hydrogen and oxygen combined (related and connected) in a certain way. Hydrogen and oxygen are only potentially water until they are combined in this certain way. Pseudo-Simplicity Another abuse that is not uncommon is to claim that of any two hypotheses, the simpler one is the true one. It is a fact that science aims at the simplest account which will systematize the whole body of available knowledge. The quest for theories which are simple explanations is certainly to be desired. But this does the mean that the simpler theory is the true theory. We must always be careful about identifying the true with the apparently simple. Empirical scientists with a materialistic metaphysics are prone to this error if they are not cautious. So are philosophers who opt for a "monistic" theory of any type. Any attempt to bring all of reality under a single (monistic) category is fraught with danger. The philosophy of Materialism, for instance, argues that there is nothing in the world but matter, simply because everything we can intelligibly talk about contains matter or a reference to it. When the materialist argues that only matter has real existence, all he has done is give us a definition of "real existence." He has not effectively denied that there are other elements in this world besides matter. The same can be said for the philosophy of Spiritualism or Idealism, which denies that matter exists and only some elusive "spiritual substance" is real. There are other types of fallacious thinking which are related to pseudo-simplicity. It is sometimes argued that logic requires a unique and irreversible order between any two concepts or propositions. For instance, if "A" presupposes "B," the converse cannot be true. This, however, ignores the possibility that there may be two factors which continually modify each other. Increased manufacturing may be a cause of increased consumption but increased consumption may also be the cause of increased manufacturing. These two factors may be actually affecting each other. Another related fallacy is the argument that things cannot be constant if they change, or change if they are constant. It is obvious, however, that there is no change without some constancy and no constancy except relative to change. Are we to deny that an individual owes the same debts if he has changed with respect to age? Are we to deny that Mount Everest is the same Mount Everest today as it was a hundred years ago simply because it has weathered during that time? Are you essentially the same person you were seven years ago before the cells of your body replaced themselves, or are you completely a different person? Our society today depends so much on scientific knowledge to help us arrive at truth that we need to be on constant alert against any abuses which may arise in the use of the scientific method. The most likely situation in which scientific abuses may occur is when empirical science becomes the unwitting or intentional tool of a particular social, political, religious, or philosophical agenda. When this occurs, science ceases to be a means to knowledge and becomes simply a means of oppression. Some examples we have seen in this century, for instance where science twisted the scientific method and the results thereof to support the philosophies of Nazism and Communism, should be warning enough that we all have a vested interest in what empirical science is doing and we should become vigilant observers of the scientific scene. Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
|
|
|
Main Page & Index |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.