7 - Two Methods of Science

The following is based on an email I sent to one of your junior academic colleagues and will illuminate the nature and methodology of the writings I sent you; it will also underscore the criticality of the problem they dwell-on as well as the limiting constraints.  Rifat Afeef from the Maldives (www.rifatafeef.blogspot.com)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I think you are leaning towards one way of finding out about reality at the expense of the other, towards the inductive approach (specific to generic) to the exclusion of the deductive approach (generic to specific).  Both approaches are accepted methods of doing science, of generating valid knowledge. 

Yet the inductive approach seems to have taken over the social sciences, along with the natural sciences, in recent decades and has led to a most tragic outcome, eloquently described by Professor Will Durant in the quote incorporated into two of the articles on my blog – namely, to a debilitating loss of perspective. 

The deductive approach was defined by Descartes formally as “an operation by which we have insight into something which follows necessarily from others that are known with certainty” (The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy).  My writings are mostly based on the deductive approach since the scope covered by them is too vast and their entanglements too complex for inductive treatment, and draw “valid inferences from necessary premises.”  Thus, for example, since humans make sense of the world based on the information bases in their brains, the inference that those with only specialized knowledge most likely cannot understand fully issues beyond their rather limited knowledge bases is a valid one, in the same way that you understand Dutch and hence can engage in meaningful interactions in that language while I don’t and thus I can’t.  (In the Maldives we have an old saying about the “mentality of the frog in the well,” since such frogs live their whole lives in their wells and as their knowledge would be limited to the occurring in those wells.)  Given that our knowledge bases are generally limited, this unfortunate situation is the inevitable fate of humanity. 

The mental uniqueness arising from this situation creates a multitude of societal problems globally, and as expounded in my writings, the way to reduce the devastation arising thereof is to help compensate for the gaps due to that uniqueness – the gaps arising inevitably from the very nature of our brains; there being nothing anyone can do about it (see the last paragraph of article #“5 - From a Local Focus to a Global One”).  The writings also make it clear that the world’s education system contributes decisively to widen those gaps, aggravating an already bad situation.  Yet even those academics / educators who are now aware of the situation still cannot muster the needed courage to face their moral responsibility to help rectify the situation – by discussing the topic among themselves and across disciplinary lines and internationally, as well as at faculty meetings of their own departments, thus raising awareness of the others.  This apathy is all the more worrying given that the remedy calls for the modification of the system, and yet any change in the system cannot be realized if academics / educators stay indifferent.  It is clear that the mindset of the world’s academics / educators is the biggest impediment to a solution, not to mention that the aggravation mentioned is a direct result of their lack of awareness to begin with – otherwise they would have already rectified the situation (footnote 2i of “1 - Introduction”).  Human progress results from the realization, and a belief, that there are better ways than business as usual. 

Consider also the following, a sampling of complex phenomena that do not lend to inductive reasoning:  

####  Einstein’s Theory of Relativity: it was considered mere speculation until a phenomenon that its tenets predicted would happen – bending of starlight by Sun’s gravity – was experimentally / empirically verified;

####  Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: no conclusive “proof” of it is thus far at hand, but it has now become widely accepted as multiple phenomena in biological & other sciences are seen to conform to its reasoning;

####  To my limited knowledge, most theories in the field of sociology don’t have such “proof” and yet are taken as valid; experimentation on society being impractical, not to mention being considered unethical; and

####  “Complexity” and related concepts as “self-organization” and “emergence” also don’t lend themselves to reductionism or, in general, to simplistic explanations; dealing with them requiring a holistic approach. 

These are all theoretical fundamentals of modern science based on the deductive method of reasoning; their being too complex to be subject to inductive and/or reductionist methods.  One might want to keep in mind that the “scientific method” is merely a tool and that the choice of any tool is dependent on the task at hand.   

Given the broad scope and complexity of the topic of my writings, one will have a hard time in understanding them if he or she resorts to nit-picking.  Instead, is vital to read them with an open mind and view the topic holistically, which calls for focusing on the logic being presented rather than be sidetracked by one’s usual biases and prejudices.  I suggest that you read them slowly, reflecting on what is being said, and keeping in mind that understanding comes from within when the relationship between the elements of the topic being viewed begins to make sense.  No one can make another person understand but only help him or her to understand.