Reading 1 Week 1 Highlights
Human Consciousness: All humans spend time puzzling about the world around them and
wondering why and how things happen. In fact, this curiosity and thought really defines what we call
human consciousness.
Naive Science and Theory
Our goals as inquisitive human beings are identical to those of the scientist: we are interested in
understanding how things work, in finding explanations and in predicting outcomes. Since we are not
acting with awareness of the rules of science, we’ll call our activities naive science.
The major difference between ordinary thought and scientific investigation is in the more stringent
requirements for scientific study.
Theory: The word theory is sometimes used to mean a wild speculation. That’s not what we refer to
when we speak of theory. We’ll use the term to mean a simplified explanation of reality.
A theory is a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions, and propositions that present a sys-
tematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables, with the purpose of explaining
and predicting the phenomena. “Fire” is a concept, while “Size of Fire” is a variable based on the
concept.
First of all, the purpose of theory is to explain and predict events. If we can predict an event, we
may be able to avoid the danger it poses, or to profit from its occurrence. if we can understand
something well enough to explain it, we have the additional possibility of controlling it to our benefit or
even changing it.
A theory achieves prediction and explanation by stating relationships between concepts which are
defined as variables (Things which vary, that is, take on different intensi- ties, values, or states).
Humans, as naive scientists, just naturally try to explain and predict ordinary events in their world.
Naive Inquiry Versus Scientific Method
The process of developing explanations for phenomena and for testing whether the explanations are
probably true or false has many opportunities for error. To overcome this, the scientific method has
,evolved as a highly formalized, systematic and controlled version of the innate human activity of
collecting and summarizing information into naive theories.
The main thing which differentiates between science and naive inquiry is the awareness that our
observations and reasoning are error-prone, and that we must employ strategies that help us guard
against committing error.
Kerlinger (1986) emphasizes five points on which science and naive inquiry differ:
The Development of Theories:
Science and naive inquiry differ greatly in the way in which the concepts of inquiry are selected for
study.
The scientist will systematically select all the concepts which can be reasonably thought to be
possible causes of a phenomenon. The scientist will also eliminate from the theory all other concepts
considered to be irrelevant. The scientist relies on the previous work of others to justify using the
concepts, and to explain the cause-effect sequence in their relationships.
But the scientist also realizes that the concepts previously used by other researchers may not exhaust
all possible causes or effects. Previous researchers may have overlooked the “real” cause simply
because they were not aware of its existence.
The naive scientist, on the other hand, does not go through this process of systematically re- viewing
the work of others, and of considering alternative concepts. Rather, guided by his biases or
convictions, he may select a concept as a cause simply because he finds it to be appealing. Similarly,
a naive scientist may latch onto a concept as being a possible cause simply because she would like it
to be the cause, not necessarily because there is a logical reason for it to be so. The naive scientist
selects concepts based on their appeal rather than their relevance.
The Testing of Theories:
Naive science and science differ dramatically in their demand for evidence which supports the truth of
a theory.
The true scientist is not satisfied by the mere fact that a theory con- forms to common sense or
personal observation. He insists on obtaining objective evidence before making judgments about the
probable truth or falsehood of the theory. Objective means that the evidence can be collected by any
other person (the evidence is reproducible), and that it is not biased toward proving the theory either
true or false. The true scientist also publishes her research procedures, so that uncon- scious bias
can be detected by others. There is also the additional benefit of enabling other research- ers to
reproduce the observations.
The naive scientist will frequently be satisfied that his theory is correct because its truth is obvious,
and conclude that no further support is needed. The theory is thought to be correct because it is “self-
evident”, “common sense”, “is what any reasonable person would con- clude”. If evidence is obtained
at all, the naive scientist’s own, informal, personal observations are usually considered sufficient.
There are many other procedures to ensure against unbiased testing of theories, (1) theories must be
tested objectively, rather than just assumed to be true or false; (2) all information must be considered
,on an equal basis, rather than selected just to support the theory; (3) testing of theories must be done
under conditions which will minimize the possibility of conscious or unconscious subjective biases of
the researcher.
The Nature of Relationships:
There are three possible relationships between two concepts. First, the relationship might be null.
This means that there is no relationship at all—the concepts operate independently of each other. A
second type of relationship is covariance, where the concepts vary together, but one is not the cause
and the other the effect. A covariance relationship can be positive or negative. Finally, the concepts
might have a causal relationship. In this case the concepts covary (are related) and changes in one
concept precede changes in the other concept, and the causal relation- ship between the two can be
justified logically.
The scientist applies the rules of mathematics and statistics to distinguish between null and non-null
relationships. She subsequently applies the conditions of causality to non-null relation- ships to
distinguish between covariance and causal relationships.
In contrast, the naive scientist is likely to capitalize on the joint occurrence of two phenomena and to
assume them to be linked in a cause-and-effect fashion, particularly if this fits his or her
preconceptions or beliefs.
Testing Theories with Observable Evidence:
Science requires objective evidence before making decisions about the truth or falsehood of a theory.
Answering scientific questions demands unbiased observation and testing. This requires that the
search for relevant concepts be limited to those concepts which are observable by any person.
The scientist cannot be concerned with that which is not observable, or that which is observed in one
fashion by one person, and in another way by someone else. This requirement limits the areas which
can be scientifically investigated.
But the naive scientist is often not concerned with such rules of evidence. If she accepts a naive
theory as true because its truth is obvious to any reasonable person, then observable evidence is not
required. Likewise, if the naive scientist assumes that everyone observes concepts just as he or she
does, then the resulting theory will apply only to similar-thinking people.
Methods of Knowing
, As the previous discussion has shown, a distinguishing characteristic of science is the method by
which we know something to be true. This can be highlighted by contrasting science to other methods
of knowing reality. Charles Peirce (in Kerlinger, 1986), classified methods of knowing, or as he called
them, methods of “fixing belief” into four categories: the method of tenacity, the method of authority,
the “a priori” method and finally, the method of science.
Probably the least sophisticated method for fixing belief is the method of tenacity. This method
determines truth, or establishes explanations, by asserting that something is true simply because it is
commonly known to be true. Period.
The second method is the method of authority. In this method, truth is established when some- one
or something for which I have high regard states the truth. I may accept my physician’s diagno- sis of
my illness as truth because my physician has been correct in the past, or because I have been taught
that physicians are expert in what they do. This method has an advantage over the method of tenacity
because it often relies on the testi- mony of experts. If the source is indeed expert, adopting the
expert’s advice may be beneficial. But this method is dangerous when the purported expert is really
not knowledgeable (such as a medical “quack”), or when persons with expertise in one area give
advice in an unrelated area (a movie star endorses a political candi- date).
The third method of knowing is the a priori method or the method of reasonable men. This method
rests on the idea that the propositions submitted are self-evident, that is, they agree with reason. The
idea of a “marketplace of ideas” applies here, as the truth would ostensibly emerge after each
proposition was examined for its logical consistency and reasonableness. The problem with this
method lies in the definition of reasonable, or, more properly, who gets to define what is reasonable.
The same facts presented to a number of reasonable people could lead to vastly different
conclusions.
The final method for fixing belief is the method of science. This method constitutes a critical shift in
perspective. Science shifts the locus of truth from single individuals to groups, by establishing a set of
mutually agreed upon rules for establishing truth. This estab- lishes, in Peirce’s words, an “external
permanency” which transcends the belief systems of any single individual.
The Scientific Method
We need to meet these requirements if our efforts are to achieve the advantages that make science
superior to other methods of fixing belief, as outlined above, and which give it the rigor that differ-
entiates true science from naive science.
