science
final and indisputable. These may be prophets, saints, politicians, holy books, etc. But they are infallible only in the eyes of their believers and followers. There are always others who disagree with them. Consequently, their authority do not suffice to justify knowledge. Thus, whenever you make an assertion you may be asked:How do you know, prove, justify? and if you answer to this question because so and so says so then you may be asked: how does he know? 2-The method of Commonsense and intuition In many cases assertions may be justified and tested by commonsense and intuition. Common sense justifications are generally based on superficial, haphazard and insufficient observations, biased evidence (selecting only those facts which support an assertion and neglecting the ones which contradict it) and defective reasoning . On the other hand in common sense justifications many things are taken to be obvious or self evident and therefore need not be tested or questioned. Political speeches, newspaper articles, discussions of the many social problems by amateur or even by expert people are full of common sense assertions. A physicist makes the following remark about common sense thinking concerning some neutral events: for common sense how meaningless it is to think that the desk on which we write is made of electrons moving with infernal speeds in voids as large as the distances in solar system. How meaningless it is to think that the air whose existence we hardly notice exerts a pressure of one kg to every square cm of our body. Again how meaningless it is to think that a light observed in a telescope has emanated from a star 50 000 years ago. Common sense tells us that the earth is flat, that the sun revolves around the world, that the heavy bodies fall more quickly than the lighter ones? Common sense may result in what may be called ordinary knowledge. Part of this knowledge are usefull and effective or many practical purposes. But common sense it is essentially insufficient and defective in testing and justifying the validity and truth of the assertions. Let us here make however two points. First, science and common sense are not completely apart. Many scientists and thinkers maintain that there is a close relation between the two: many branches of science have developed from common sense observations and thinking. Second, most of what is called social science has not yet gone far beyond common sense.
THE WAY TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
1-The method of Authority One way or method to justify the assertions made
is to show that it is affirmed by some highly respected souece. For example, it can be shown that it is made by a famous scientist or thinker or that it is found in many books written by competent people. In many cases such tests or justifications are reasonable and in evitable. But they may not always establish the truth and validity of the assertions. This may happen for several reasons: In the first place this manner of justification answer the question "why an assertion is true" by stating that because so and so ( some
presumable competent person) says so or it is so said in such and such sources. But if an assertion is
affirmed by some competent persons then the question arises ?how do they justify it?. So the problem of j
ustification is still there. On the other hand, in some cases different authorities may have different and divergent
opinions about the same subject. Then which one will we believe and why? There is another form of authority which
is far more problematic. In this case some persons or sources are regarded as in fallible and their words are considered as fi
| final and indisputable. These may be prophets, saints, politicians, holy books, etc. But they are infallible only in the eyes of their believers and followers. There are always others who disagree with them. Consequently, their authority do not suffice to justify knowledge. Thus, whenever you make an assertion you may be asked:How do you know, prove, justify? and if you answer to this question because so and so says so then you may be asked: how does he know? 2-The method of Commonsense and intuition In many cases assertions may be justified and tested by commonsense and intuition. Common sense justifications are generally based on superficial, haphazard and insufficient observations, biased evidence (selecting only those facts which support an assertion and neglecting the ones which contradict it) and defective reasoning . On the other hand in common sense justifications many things are taken to be obvious or self evident and therefore need not be tested or questioned. Political speeches, newspaper articles, discussions of the many social problems by amateur or even by expert people are full of common sense assertions. A physicist makes the following remark about common sense thinking concerning some neutral events: for common sense how meaningless it is to think that the desk on which we write is made of electrons moving with infernal speeds in voids as large as the distances in solar system. How meaningless it is to think that the air whose existence we hardly notice exerts a pressure of one kg to every square cm of our body. Again how meaningless it is to think that a light observed in a telescope has emanated from a star 50 000 years ago. Common sense tells us that the earth is flat, that the sun revolves around the world, that the heavy bodies fall more quickly than the lighter ones? Common sense may result in what may be called ordinary knowledge. Part of this knowledge are usefull and effective or many practical purposes. But common sense it is essentially insufficient and defective in testing and justifying the validity and truth of the assertions. Let us here make however two points. First, science and common sense are not completely apart. Many scientists and thinkers maintain that there is a close relation between the two: many branches of science have developed from common sense observations and thinking. Second, most of what is called social science has not yet gone far beyond common sense. |
| THE WAY TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD |
|
| 1-The method of Authority One way or method to justify the assertions made is to show that it is affirmed by some highly respected souece. For example, it can be shown that it is made by a famous scientist or thinker or that it is found in many books written by competent people. In many cases such tests or justifications are reasonable and in evitable. But they may not always establish the truth and validity of the assertions. This may happen for several reasons: In the first place this manner of justification answer the question "why an assertion is true" by stating that because so and so ( some |
| presumable competent person) says so or it is so said in such and such sources. But if an assertion is affirmed by some competent persons then the question arises ?how do they justify it?. So the problem of j ustification is still there. On the other hand, in some cases different authorities may have different and divergent opinions about the same subject. Then which one will we believe and why? There is another form of authority which is far more problematic. In this case some persons or sources are regarded as in fallible and their words are considered as fi |
|
|