Philosophy 3304 Logic

Dr. Naugle

Scientific Methods1

INTRODUCTION:

The scientific method is one of the most fascinating fields of the human quest for
knowledge. Scientific reasoning has been the major means of acquiring
knowledge since the Copernican Revolution (Nicholas Copernicus, died 1543).
But most of us lack a true understanding of the so-called scientific method about
which there are several misconceptions including the following:

1. Many see the scientific method as one that is singular—the scientific method—
that there is only one way to go about discovering scientific knowledge and that
the one process has been finalized (that there are no ways to change or improve
upon it). Even though there are many scientific methods, one—the hy-
pothetical/inductive method (observation, hypothesis, experimentation, observa-
tion)—tends to predominate.

2. We see it as a process that will always yield true, correct, or accurate results.
Science has assumed a role of great "verily, verily" authority in our culture. But
how do you know you are not being duped? Scientific mistakes and errors (even
fraud) are aplenty.

3. We assume that the scientist and the scientific process are neutral and
objective in which the personal outlook, biases, opinions, and worldview of the
scientist plays little or no part. This is simply not the case.

The scientific method is really only one of several ways of confirming scientific
knowledge. A little more background information will help.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:

The historical background that laid the foundation for 20th century science and
theories of scientific confirmation is found in the following philosophers and
philosophical movements:

1. Rationalism: In the 17th century and beginning with R. Descartes (1596-1650),

rationalists began with a priori concepts (innate ideas, first principles, etc.) and
built up the entire edifice of knowledge from those premises without recourse to
experience. But is the rational the real?

1
NB: This material is taken from several logic texts authored by N. Geisler, H.
Kahane, and others. I make no claim to originality in this material.

-1-
2. Empiricism: In the 18th century and beginning with British philosopher John
Locke (1632-1704), the empirical school argued that all knowledge comes from
experience, a posteriori. In Locke's view, man is born as a blank slate (tabula
rasa) which is subsequently marked by experiences which in turn becomes
knowledge. This led to what may be called the JUSTIFICATIONAL MODEL of
knowledge which began with observation leading to a hypothesis which culmi-
nated in a theory about reality which translated into TRUTH!

3. Idealism: In 1781 Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) published a book entitled the

Critique of Pure Reason which criticized the rational and empirical traditions and
attempted a synthesis of both. In regard to the Justificational model, he asserted
that the step from observation to theory was impossible and the step from theory
to truth was highly questionable. Instead, Kant suggested that the correct scien-
tific method began with theory and in the context of the theory observations are
made. That is, our presuppositions and theories color the way we view the world
around us such that no one is objective in their understanding of the world and in
their science.

In the light of this background we can see that it is not easy to decide what is
truth, scientifically or otherwise! In what follows, I will itemize several theories of
confirmation that show that there is no one single way to do science.

THEORIES OF CONFIRMATION:

1. Verificationalism: Building upon the doctrines of Bertrand Russell and L.

Wittgenstein and growing out of the empiricism of Berkeley and Hume, and
originally developed by a group of philosophers in Vienna called the "Vienna
Circle," this approach to science, sometimes called logical positivism or
verificationalism, has been forcefully and clearly articulated by A. J. Ayer in his
book Language, Truth and Logic (1946). This position is very close to the
justificational model presented above and consists of two parts: that for a
proposition to be true, it must be either empirically verifiable, or it must be
tautological (where the predicate defines the subject). Ayers articulated the
position in these words:

"To test whether a sentence expresses a genuine empirical hypothesis, I adopt

what may be called a modified verificational principle. For I require of an
empirical hypothesis, not indeed that it should be completely verifiable, but that
some possible sense experience should be relevant to the determination of its
truth or falsehood. If a putative proposition fails to satisfy this principle, and is not
a tautology, then I hold that it is metaphysical, and that, being metaphysical, it is
neither true nor false but literally senseless."

Several criticisms of this principle are leveled. One, is the verificational principle
empirically verifiable, or a tautology? No! Hence, on its own grounds, the

-2-
principle is meaningless or senseless. Two, it rules out discussion of the non-
empirical including God, morality, and even atomic particles! Three, while the
verificational model purports to be inductive and objective, in fact it is highly
deductive and subjective. That is, it imposes the theory or framework of
verificationalism upon experience and what counts as empirical evidence to
support a proposition is thereby determined in advance by the scientist's own
empirical standards (hence its subjective nature). Maybe science is deductive
after all. That's what the next theory suggests.

Falsificationism: Ever since the time of Francis Bacon's Novum Organon (1620),
it was thought that the proper method for doing science was inductive not
deductive (in Bacon's context, Aristotelian scholasticism). That is, until Karl
Popper came along with his view of falsificationism in his book The Logic of
Scientific Discovery (1934). In short, his goal was not to marshal evidence to
prove a theory to be true, but rather to find evidence that would prove a theory to
be false. For example, are all swans white? Assembling white swans from all
over the world would seemingly prove the claim to be true, but finding one black
Australian swan would immediately falsifying the thesis. Now, if no non-white
swans are found, then we have increased the likelihood of the thesis being true,
but it has not been proven. But if one non-white swan is found, then the claim is
certainly rendered false. An more complex version of Popper's method can be
found in Imre Lakatos' paper (1970) "Falsification and the Methodology of
Scientific Research Programs."

For Popper, like I. Kant, what will count for a theory (verificationalism) and what
will count against a theory (falsificationism) is always determined by the
scientist's own theoretical, scientific, & philosophical orientation which is an
unavoidable given of the human condition. Hence, the scientific method will bring
us close to truth even though we will never arrive at truth, for we are always
theory bound. Science always results in theory, not pure objective truth.

Paradigm Model: In 1962 Thomas Kuhn published a book entitled The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions in which he argued that "normal science" only occurs in
a paradigm or world view which embraces an understand of what the world is
like, has explanatory power, attracts an enduring group of scientist advocates
and is sufficiently open ended to encourage scientific investigation. As a result,
normal science is a process of working within, and working out the implications of
a given paradigm.

When a number of scientific anomalies occur which do not fit the reigning
paradigm, a "paradigm shift" occurs (e.g., Newtonian to Einsteinian physics). The
new paradigm is better at explaining problems which are currently viewed as the
most important and consequently tends to gain ascendancy among other
alternatives even though it is not necessarily the only one available or even the
best. The new paradigm is not a logical extension of the old one as a progressive
development; sometimes it is not only incompatible with the preceding one, but

-3-
actually "incommensurate" with what has gone before. But once a scientist has
shifted paradigms, he sees the world differently from the way he did before; there
has been a change in worldviews that is analogous to a religious conversion.

Kuhn's model takes both Kant and Popper seriously in that he clearly shows how
science is theory or value laden. But whereas Popper says that science proceeds
in a logical order in the context of a theory, Kuhn says there is no system, only
paradigms. Kuhn's paradigm model is clearly within the relativist camp regarding
knowledge. He says that a scientist shifts paradigms on the basis of faith in the
new model to solve future problems, and that this decision is one that is also
based on subjective and aesthetic considerations. And as more and more
scientists embrace a new perspective, normal science is defined in terms of that
paradigm. Hence, normal science is relative.

Postmodern Anarchistic Model: Paul Feyerabend wrote a book in 1975 entitled

Against Methods in which he built upon Kuhn's notion that science does not
proceed rationally or progressively, but rather irrationally from one paradigm to
another. Feyerabend denies that there is no such thing as normal science and
that all scientists must have complete freedom to pursue nature as he so desires.
There must be no restraints, but rather a complete anarchy as the history of
science suggests.

CONCLUSION: There are numerous models of science and critical thinkers must
evaluate the evidence given by science for different models produce different
conclusions. Nonetheless, the scientific method explained in most informal logic
classes like ours offer what we could call the hypothetical/deductive or the
hypothesis and testing method of scientific discovery.

THE HYPOTHETICAL/DEDUCTIVE OR
THE HYPOTHESIS AND TESTING METHOD
OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY

Introduction:

In the scientific quest for knowledge about the world, it is possible to distinguish
between two categories: the past and the present, the historical and the
empirical, origin science and operation science. The former category deals with
events that occurred in the past and are not occurring in the present. The latter
category deals with ongoing events in the present. The first covers the origin of
the world; the second the operation of the world today. The Hypothesis and
testing method is specifically designed to make discoveries about the physical
and biological worlds and has the advantage of testing hypotheses against a
regular pattern of events that can be observed in nature. It consists of the fol-
lowing steps.

-4-
I. Step One: The Situation (or Recognizing the Problem)

Step number one is to recognize a situation that is generating a problem or a

question. Many of these are created by practical concerns (medical problem;
manufacturing problem, etc.). Problems may be generated in the realm of the
theoretical sciences as well (theory of relativity; big bang). The first step is to
recognize the problem whether it be of practical or theoretical nature.

II. Step Two: Formulate the Problem

Next, the problem to be researched must be formulated. What questions need to

be answered? How are the answers going to be looked for? What kind of study
must be undertaken: statistical, experimental, historical, etc? The research
project must be narrowed down to manageable size. This includes what kind of
experiment to undertake-the rifle, rather than the shotgun approach.

III. Step Three: Observation

Sherlock Holmes once said to Watson: "You see, but you do not observe!" And
Helen Keller similarly stated to a friend: "How tragic it is to have sight, but to lack
vision!" Well, in the scientific process proper, it is necessary to observe with
vision! Whatever relevant facts or data that can be found should be noted and
recorded because the smallest clue or detail may be the key to the solution to the
problem.

IV. Step Four: Reflection

Think! Think! Think! This is the next step. Reflecting on the observations made,
noting patterns and regularities as clues may unlock the secret of the problem
you are examining. Also, you must reflect on previous knowledge. What has
other research shown? What is known about similar problems? What principles
apply here? You must examine the things you observed in light of other
knowledge and this leads to a tentative hypothesis.

V. Step Five: Formulate the Hypothesis

Formulating a hypothesis is the main step in the scientific method. It is a

statement of what we expect to find, an intelligent "guesstimation" about the way
things work, a solution to the proposed problem. It leads in a certain direction,
and is a way of stating what we think is going on so that tests can be undertaken
to see if it is right. This step has been called neither inductive or deductive, but
adductive!—a flash of insight, an intuition worth considering and testing.

VI. Step Six: Predictions

-5-
If the hypothesis is correct, then it should behave in certain ways under certain
conditions that can be predicted, a deductive maneuver. If the premises are true,
then valid deductions are true. Thus, it is necessary to test the premises or the
hypothesis via experimentation.

VII. Step Seven: Testing by Experimentation

The way to find out if the hypothesis is true or false is by testing and further
observation of the results of the test or experiment performed. Experimentation
puts the theory to the test to see if it works as expected. But how should
experiments be run? Definitions of a few terms are in order. Antecedent factor is
something that happens before the effect is seen. The effect is the event that we
are trying to understand. The concomitant factor is a factor that happens at the
same time as the cause, but does not really cause the effect. Now with these
terms in mind, we can lay out the principles that help us to determine what
caused something to happen

A. The method of agreement

1. Negatively, no antecedent factor is the cause in whose absence the effect oc-
curs.

2. Positively, the single antecedent factor common to all situations where the ef-
fect occurs is probably the cause.

B. The method of difference

1. Negatively, no antecedent factor can be the cause in whose presence the ef-
fect fails to happen.

2. Positively, in otherwise identical situations, the antecedent factor unique to one

situation is probably the cause.

C. The joint method

This is the method of cross-checking. It is simply a combination of the above two

methods.

D. The method of concomitant variation

The antecedent factor that varies proportionately with the effect is probably the
cause.

E. The method of residues

-6-
This is the simple process of elimination. The antecedent factor that remains
after the other antecedent factors are found to be related to other effects is
probably the cause.

F. Conclusion: These methods are the testing instruments of the scientific

method. Without these, no hypothesis could be confirmed or denied. They give
us positive and negative evidence of causal connections and can establish
patterns to explain the effect. You can never say with positive certainty that A
caused B, but probable answers using these methods are possible. This is the
heart of the scientific inductive method.

VIII. Step Eight: Accept or Reject the Hypothesis

Now that a problem has been formulated, researched, developed into a

hypothesis and predictions, and finally tested, the results of the test will
determine if the hypothesis should be accepted or not. The results of the test
should be measured against the scale of the degrees of probability:

99%±—Virtually Certain (gravity)

90%±—Highly Probable (no two snowflakes alike)

70%±—Probable (for medicines to be approved)

50%±—Possible (coin toss)

30%±—Improbable (life on other planets?)

10%±—Highly Improbable (that Jesus visited N. America)

1%±—Virtually Impossible
(Unicorns or Mermaids)

If the results of the test are greater than 70%, then the probability is good, and
the hypothesis is confirmed. If it is confirmed with an even higher degree of
probability, then it can be accepted as the means of working knowledge for new
problems. It moves from hypothesis to theory, and if the theory is confirmed, it
may even attain to the status of a scientific "law."

-7-