Science, Reasoning and the (Geo) Scientist
Facts, observations, evidence?
Concepts, ideas; interpretation, understanding; reality, methodology?
People, power, authority?
Observation, analysis, rigour, accuracy, objective/subjective, philosophy, logic vs intuition, hypothesis, theory, integrity, honesty?
Collection of data from which emerges a hypothesis or general theory - INDUCTION
Use of general theory to interpret certain data -
DEDUCTION
Induction has a focus upon verification (proof?). Most scientists think that they practise some sort of hypothetico-deductive rather than pure inductive methodology.
This is a crude, and depressingly widespread, variant of positivist thinking. It seeks explanation or interpretation of evidence in terms of a single cause for each effect.
Experience and history show that when dealing with geosystems this approach is naïve and simplistic - ie suspect or invalid
Karl Popper The logic of scientific discovery 1959
Thomas Kuhn The structure of scientific revolutions 1962
T. C. Chamberlin Science 15 92 1890 Multiple hypotheses
Popper sought to undermine the conventional inductivist view of science. He maintains that in strictly logical terms no amount of experiments or observations can really verify or prove a theory but just one set of observations or experiments can falsify it. Thus all scientific theory should be presented in a form whereby it can be falsified or tested.
Kuhn maintains that science can only be understood in terms of how scientists operate and interact. This involves reference to psychology and sociology. His basic thesis is that science does not progress by systematic accumulation of knowledge but by radical changes of paradigm or overall view. Such changes are revolutions are punctuated by periods of 'normal science' or humdrum 'problem solving'.
Chamberlin suggested that those observing natural phenomena should think up several hypotheses to explain their data. The different hypotheses should then be evaluated critically perhaps employing Occam's Razor - ie using the least number of untested assumptions
Breakdown of complex phenomena or systems in to systems, cycles, subsystems etc. Opponents of reductionism maintain that it is too simplistic and subjective and prefer methodologies which are holistic or synergistic.
Modern systems science aspires to be holistic whilst acknowledging the difficulties in achieving this.
Some scientists regard the recognition of systems as simplistic - they are probably right!
wld
|
