103 Scientific Thinking
Submitted by Mr. Test on Fri, 12/15/2006 - 8:20pm.
HOME PREV 103 NEXT INDEX
The Philosophy Of Freedom
Chapter 1
Conscious Human Action
1-0 Chapter Introduction
There are those who, in their moral fervor, label anyone a man of limited intelligence who can deny so patent a fact as freedom. Opposed to them are others who regard it as the acme of unscientific thinking for anyone to believe that the uniformity of natural law is broken in the sphere of human action and thinking. One and the same thing is thus proclaimed, now as the most precious possession of humanity, now as its most fatal illusion.
Science is a method that allows a person to possess, with the highest degree of certainty possible, reliable knowledge (justified true belief) about nature. The method used to justify scientific knowledge, and thus make it reliable, is called the scientific method. The scientific method, as used in both scientific thinking and critical thinking, follows a number of steps.
1. Question
One must ask a meaningful question or identify a significant problem. Here is where emotions and outside influences come in. For example, all scientists are very curious about nature, and they have to possess this emotional characteristic to sustain the motivation and energy necessary to perform the hard and often tedious work of science. Scientists have emotions, some in high degree; however, they don't let their emotions give false validity to their conclusions, and, in fact, the scientific method prevents them from trying to do this even if they wished.
2. Gather Information
One must next gather relevant information to attempt to answer the question or solve the problem by making observations. These observations must be empirical in nature--that is, they must be sensible, measurable, and repeatable, so that others can make the same observations.
3. Form Hypothesis
Now one can propose a solution or answer to the problem or question. In science, this suggested solution or answer is called a scientific hypothesis.
A scientific hypothesis is an informed, testable, and predictive solution to a scientific problem that explains a natural phenomenon, process, or event.
In critical thinking, as in science, your proposed answer or solution must be testable, otherwise it is essentially useless for further investigation.
4. Experiment
Next, one must test the hypothesis before it is corroborated and given any real validity. One conducts an experiment.
Only hypotheses involving natural processes, natural events, and natural laws can be tested; the supernatural cannot be tested, so it lies outside of science and its existence or nonexistence is irrelevant to science.
5. Analyze The Results
If the hypothesis fails the test, it must be rejected and either abandoned or modified. A modified hypothesis must be tested again. If the hypothesis passes the further tests, it is considered to be a corroborated hypothesis, and can now be published.
A corroborated hypothesis is one that has passed its tests, i.e., one whose predictions have been verified.
Scientists never claim that a hypothesis is "proved" in a strict sense (but sometimes this is quite legitimately claimed when using popular language), because proof is something found only in mathematics and logic, disciplines in which all logical parameters or constraints can be defined, -- something that is not true in the natural world.
Scientists prefer to use the word "corroborated" rather than "proved," but the meaning is essentially the same. A highly corroborated hypothesis becomes something else in addition to reliable knowledge--it becomes a scientific fact.
A scientific fact is a highly corroborated hypothesis that has been so repeatedly tested and for which so much reliable evidence exists, that it would be perverse or irrational to deny it.
This type of reliable knowledge is the closest that humans can come to the "truth" about the universe.
Many scientific facts violate common sense and the beliefs of ancient philosophies and religions, so many people persist in denying them, but they thereby indulge in irrationality and perversity.
6. Scientific Conclusion
The final step of the scientific method is to construct, support, or cast doubt on a scientific theory. A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory."
A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses.
A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena. Scientific theories explain nature by unifying many once-unrelated facts or corroborated hypotheses; they are the strongest and most truthful explanations of how the universe, nature, and life came to be, how they work, what they are made of, and what will become of them.
Scientific knowledge comes from the practice of scientific thinking--using the scientific method--and this mode of discovering and validating knowledge can be duplicated and achieved by anyone who practices critical thinking. |
TOP
B. Scientific Thinking
By Steven D. Schafersman
The Definition of Science Science is a method of discovering reliable knowledge about nature. There are other methods of discovering and learning knowledge about nature, but science is the only method that results in the acquisition of reliable knowledge.
Reliable knowledge is knowledge that has a high probablility of being true because its veracity has been justified by a reliable method.
Every person has knowledge or beliefs, but not all of each person's knowledge is reliably true and justified. In fact, most individuals believe in things that are untrue or unjustified or both: most people possess a lot of unreliable knowledge and, what's worse, they act on that knowledge!
Critical Thinking
When one uses the methods and principles of scientific thinking in everyday life--such as when studying history or literature, investigating societies or governments, seeking solutions to problems of economics or philosophy, or just trying to answer personal questions about oneself or the meaning of existence--one is said to be practicing critical thinking.
 Critical thinking is thinking correctly for oneself that successfully leads to the most reliable answers to questions and solutions to problems.
In other words, critical thinking gives you reliable knowledge about all aspects of your life and society, and is not restricted to the formal study of nature. Critical thinking is perhaps the most important skill a student can learn in school and college, since if you master its skills, you know how to think successfully and reach reliable conclusions.
Scientific thinking is identical in theory and practice, but the term would be used to describe the method that gives you reliable knowledge about the natural world.
Scientific and critical thinking was not discovered and developed by scientists (that honor must go to ancient Hellenistic philosophers, such as Aristotle, who also are sometimes considered the first scientists), but scientists were the ones to bring the practice of critical thinking to the attention and use of modern society (in the 17th and 18th centuries), and they are the most explicit, rigorous, and successful practitioners of critical thinking today.
Some professionals in the humanities, social sciences, jurisprudence, business, and journalism practice critical thinking as well as any scientist, but many, alas, do not. Scientists must practice critical thinking to be successful, but the qualifications for success in other professions do not necessarily require the use of critical thinking, a fact that is the source of much confusion, discord, and unhappiness in our society.
The Three Central Components of Scientific and Critical Thinking
What is scientific thinking? The scientific method is practiced within a context of scientific thinking, and scientific (and critical) thinking is based on three things: using empirical evidence (empiricism), practicing logical reasoning (rationalism), and possessing a skeptical attitude (skepticism) about presumed knowledge that leads to self-questioning, holding tentative conclusions, and being undogmatic (willingness to change one's beliefs). Let's examine each in turn.
1. Empiricism: The Use of Empirical Evidence
Empirical evidence is evidence that one can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell; it is evidence that is susceptible to one's senses. Empirical evidence is important because it is evidence that others besides yourself can experience, and it is repeatable, so empirical evidence can be checked by yourself and others after knowledge claims are made by an individual. Empirical evidence is the only type of evidence that possesses these attributes and is therefore the only type used by scientists and critical thinkers to make vital decisions and reach sound conclusions.
We can contrast empirical evidence with other types of evidence to understand its value.
Hearsay and Testimonial Evidence
Is what someone says they heard another say; it is not reliable because you cannot check its source. Better is testimonial evidence, which, unlike hearsay evidence, is allowed in courts of law. But even testimonial evidence is notoriously unreliable, as numerous studies have shown.
Circumstantial Evidence
Courts also allow circumstantial evidence (e.g., means, motive, and opportunity), but this is obviously not reliable.
 Revelatory Evidence
Revelation is what someone says was revealed to them by some deity or supernatural power; it is not reliable because it cannot be checked by others and is not repeatable.
Spectral Evidence
This is evidence supposedly manifested by ghosts, spirits, and other paranormal or supernatural entities; spectral evidence was once used, for example, to convict and hang a number of innocent women on charges of witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts, in the seventeenth century, before the colonial governor banned the use of such evidence, and the witchcraft trials ended.
Emotional Evidence
This is evidence derived from one's subjective feelings; such evidence is often repeatable, but only for one person, so it is unreliable.
Authoritarian Evidence
The most common alternative to empirical evidence, authoritarian evidence, is what authorities (people, books, billboards, television commercials, etc.) tell you to believe. Sometimes, if the authority is reliable, authoritarian evidence is reliable evidence, but many authorities are not reliable, so you must check the reliability of each authority before you accept its evidence. In the end, you must be your own authority and rely on your own powers of critical thinking to know if what you believe is reliably true.
Scientific and critical thinking require that one reject blind faith, authority, revelation, and subjective human feelings as a basis for reliable belief and knowledge. These human cognitive methods have their place in human life, but not as the foundation for reliable knowledge.
2. Rationalism: The Practice of Logical Reasoning
Scientists and critical thinkers always use logical reasoning. Logic allows us to reason correctly. Logic is not an ability that humans are born with or one that will gradually develop and improve on its own, but is a skill or discipline that must be learned. The best way to learn to think logically is to study logic and reasoning in a philosophy class, take mathematics and science courses that force you to use logic, read great literature and study history, and write frequently.
Many illogical arguments and statements are accepted and unchallenged in modern society--often leading to results that are counterproductive to the good of society or even tragic--because so many people don't recognize them for what they are.
3. Skepticism: Possessing a Skeptical Attitude
The final key idea in science and critical thinking is skepticism, the constant questioning of your beliefs and conclusions. Good scientists and critical thinkers constantly examine the evidence, arguments, and reasons for their beliefs. Self-deception and deception of yourself by others are two of the most common human failings. Self-deception often goes unrecognized because most people deceive themselves. The only way to escape both deception by others and the far more common trait of self-deception is to repeatedly and rigorously examine your basis for holding your beliefs.
One way to do this is to test your beliefs against objective reality by predicting the consequences or logical outcomes of your beliefs and the actions that follow from your beliefs. If the logical consequences of your beliefs match objective reality--as measured by empirical evidence--you can conclude that your beliefs are reliable knowledge. |
TOP
C. Rudolf Steiner And Science
By Rudolf Steiner Web
Rudolf Steiner believed in the possibility of uniting the clarity of modern scientific thinking with the awareness of a spiritual world that lives in all religious and mystical experience. Science focuses on theories which can be tested and verified. Steiner tried to create an approach to what he called the "inner life" that would use the careful, systematic methodology created by modern science, but turn its attention to the soul and spirit.
James Hindes:
"The general public, following the lead of the scientific establishment, reserves the word 'science' for the exploration and mastery of the physical world. It believes that the only real sciences are the 'hard sciences.' Steiner pointed out that this unconscious and unjustified assumption is as wrong as it is widespread. As any philosopher of science will admit, it is the method, not the subject matter that determines whether any given investigation is scientific.
Steiner's research into higher spiritual worlds was scientific in method, repeatable and verifiable. However, the exercises required to develop the faculties needed for spiritual investigations are rigorous, demanding and require years of consistent application before one can verify or contest Steiner's results with modern clairvoyance. Those who have made those efforts have begun to verify Steiner's work. Those who do not possess such faculties naturally tend not to believe in their existence. At the same time much of Steiner's work has yielded results eminently practical in the earthly realm, in agriculture, medicine and in education to name just a few.
The results of Steiner's investigations are consistent internally and also when placed alongside the actual facts presented to us by the physical world. Of course, Steiner's descriptions do not always harmonize with the theories of modern science. And since we do not always realize the extent to which our 'facts' about the physical world have actually been created by our theories, there is sometimes an apparent conflict. "
Hindes, James. Renewing Christianity. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1996. Pages 11.
 Rudolf Steiner:
“Hence those who have come together in the Anthroposophical Society are of the opinion that in spiritual science or Anthroposophy a bond is to be created between the great advances associated with natural science and the religious life of man. If we enter into the real significance of natural science we can say that it leads to a picture of the world in which the essence of man's nature has no place. In saying this I am not expressing my own view, but what becomes clearly evident when we study scientific research with an unprejudiced mind; for only an age which – though with justice admiring scientific knowledge – has been unable to recognize its limitations could deceive itself about this.
Individual scientists have long recognized certain limitations; and the speech that Du Bois-Reymond gave in Leipzig in the seventies, which ended with the admission ‘ignorabimus’, `we shall never know’, has become famous. This eminent scientist meant by this that however much we may investigate the mysteries of nature with the methods of natural science, we shall never ultimately be able to discover what lives in the human soul as consciousness or understand what lies at the foundation of matter. Natural science is of little use when it comes to understanding matter and consciousness, which are in a certain sense the two poles of human life. It could be said that natural science has forced man as a spiritual being out of the picture of the world that it is building up. This can be seen if we take a look at the ideas which have emerged from a scientific foundation regarding the evolution of the Earth.”
Rudolf Steiner. "Approaches to Anthroposophy." Sussex: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1992. Page 42 |
D. Rudolf Steiner Science Quotes
By Rudolf Steiner Web
Rudolf Steiner:
“The spiritual scientist’s way of looking at things is wholly in keeping with the methods of natural science. However, it must certainly be clear that since spiritual science covers an entirely different field from the external sense perceptible field covered by natural science, researching the spiritual realm requires a fundamental modification of the natural scientific approach. The methods of the spiritual science are in keeping with those of natural science in the sense that any unprejudiced person trained in natural science can accept the premises of spiritual science.”
Rudolf Steiner. Anthroposophy and Christianity. Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophical Press, 1985. Page 2. (G. A. 155 lecture of July 13th 1914.)
Rudolf Steiner:
"The main point is that spiritual science, with its methods of research, only begins where modern natural science leaves off. Humanity is indebted to the view of the world adopted by natural science for which I would call a logic which educates itself by the facts of nature. An important method of training has been introduced, amongst those who have concerned themselves with natural science, with regard to the inner application of thinking.”
Rudolf Steiner. "Approaches to Anthroposophy." Sussex: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1992. Page 11.
Rudolf Steiner:
"The facts of contemporary work [modern science] fully confirm this [anthroposophical] view. It is only misled opinions regarding these facts which deny this and presume that spiritual science and natural science contradict each other. This contradiction, however, does not really exist."
Rudolf Steiner. "Approaches to Anthroposophy." Sussex: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1992. Page 32.
Rudolf Steiner:
“Not so long ago it was still possible to believe that natural science – which is by no means unappreciated by spiritual science but is as regards to its great advances fully valued – had the means to solve all the great riddles of human existence. But those who have entered with heightened inner faculties into the achievements of modern science have been increasingly aware that what natural science brings as a response to the great questions of human existence are not answers but, on the contrary, ever new questions."
Rudolf Steiner. "Approaches to Anthroposophy." Sussex: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1992. Page 39-40.
Rudolf Steiner:
"A it is neither possible nor desirable to forestall the science difficult investigations of nature, for this is necessary of modern man is to introduce anything advantageous into his daily life."
Rudolf Steiner. "Approaches to Anthroposophy." Sussex: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1992. Page 42.
Rudolf Steiner:
“Hence those who have come together in the Anthroposophical Society are of the opinion that in spiritual science or Anthroposophy a bond is to be created between the great advances associated with natural science and the religious life of man. If we enter into the real significance of natural science we can say that it leads to a picture of the world in which the essence of man's nature has no place. In saying this I am not expressing my own view, but what becomes clearly evident when we study scientific research with an unprejudiced mind; for only an age which – though with justice admiring scientific knowledge – has been unable to recognize its limitations could deceive itself about this. Individual scientists have long recognized certain limitations; and the speech that Du Bois-Reymond gave in Leipzig in the seventies, which ended with the admission ‘ignorabimus’, `we shall never know’, has become famous. This eminent scientist meant by this that however much we may investigate the mysteries of nature with the methods of natural science, we shall never ultimately be able to discover what lives in the human soul as consciousness or understand what lies at the foundation of matter. Natural science is of little use when it comes to understanding matter and consciousness, which are in a certain sense the two poles of human life. It could be said that natural science has forced man as a spiritual being out of the picture of the world that it is building up. This can be seen if we take a look at the ideas which have emerged from a scientific foundation regarding the evolution of the Earth.”
Rudolf Steiner. "Approaches to Anthroposophy." Sussex: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1992. Page 42. |
|
|
|
|
