Empiricism
I will explain in the following paper why I believe that realism and instrumentalism are erroneous approaches to science and why empiricism seems to be the more valid approach. I believe that truth is relative to language. The word theory in greek means "to be in front of". Our science is limited by our language, because we use our language as a way to construct our world. We use our language and theories to paint over the world what we think exists and while we use that language to create that reality, we paint over other "realitites", which we don't acknowledge, because we know no better. Scientific claims can be true in their own proper domain but they don't tell the whole story, or even that there is a whole story to tell. The distinguishing features of realism are twofold: realism seeks truth as a goal and when a realist accepts a theory it is accepted as true. So to argue realism would be to argue that no other realities have any causal effect on the observed phenomenon. There can be other truths -- different stories about the world -- each of which it may be proper to believe. I think its quite narcissistic, not to mention egotistical, to think that we know the totality of science to the extent that we think we're qualified to make such conjectures about the true nature of the world in which we live. Therefore, I consider realism to be an erroneous approach to science.
Before determining the validity of instrumentalism, I think we must look at history to help us determine science's overall purpose. I believe that science precipitates from an inner curiosity how about how the world works. I believe that after looking into the past, we can deduce that science has had a dual function: to explain observable or unobservable phenomenon and to help predict the outcome of our actions. For example, with the gravitational theory, at first we attempted to explain the motion of falling objects and then assuming that this force that we call "gravity" would stay relatively static, we could predict the outcome of other falling objects. Instrumentalist is a noble theory, but I don't believe it to be historically consistent with the aims of science as it was created.
Consequently I propose an empiricism approach to science. Empiricism takes empirical adequacy (not truth) as the goal of science and when it accepts a theory it accepts it as empirically adequate.
Any hypothesis, Gould says, begins with the collection of facts. In this early stage of a theory development bad science leads nowhere, since it contains either little or contradicting evidence. On the other hand, Gould suggests, testable proposals are accepted temporarily, furthermore, new collected facts confirm a hypothesis. That is how good science works. It is self-correcting and self-developing with the flow of time: new information improves a good theory and makes it more precise. Finally, good hypotheses create logical relations to other subjects and contribute to their expansion.
...concrete theories and empirical truths, no matter how factual, that we may attempt to use
Realism, in philosophical terms, refers to the concept that there is a reality beyond our perception. This means that how we see things and what we believe about them has no impact on the nature of said things. For example an individual may see an object as blue and another see the same object to be red, this is merely a disagreement between both parties about how they should label the colour. This wouldn’t mean that both parties are discussing different objects, this shows that no matter what individual’s beliefs or thoughts on the real world are only ever approximations and do not accurately capture reality. (O’Brien, M and Yar, M, 2008)
B.F. Skinner was a empiricist in my opinion he believed that only basically after experience one can formulate a theory. Another reason why I believe Skinner was a empiricist do to his book published in 1957 "Verbal Behavior. Which, had set the way for behaviorism which means basically it's like a child born with a blank slate feeling them up with knowledge that is obtained through experience so in actuality this is related to empiricist. Empiricist is a "Philosophy. the doctrine that all knowledge isderived from sense experience." (Dictionary.com) Skinner was already relating to empiricist when he created this book in 1957 and making it clear what is view on life was. Furthermore Skinner is know for his famous quote "Education is what survives
§ Physical Bodies - dreaming - e.g. do you know you are awake now? Or
The Intuitionist, a novel written by Colson Whitehead, illustrates many aspects of society through the parody of a detective novel. Since elevator inspectors have no detective talents, the idea is just a cover, underneath which lies a myriad of the author's opinions on society. The book, published only in the year nineteen-ninety-nine, is filled with miniscule clues that pilot one toward substantial metaphors. Among these are racism, politics, one's place in society, and so on and so forth. This novel is an ocean of allegories in its youth, its depths waiting to be explored.
Messenger, E., Gooch, J., & Seyler, D. U. (2011). Arguing About Science. Argument! (pp. 396-398). New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Co..
Both Marxist and positivist stress the need for a rigorous scientific method, for scientific analysis of the social phenomenon and natural world.
Philosophy uses a term for empirical knowledge, “posteriori”, meaning that knowledge is “dependent upon sense experience”. (Markie, 2008, section 1.2) Yet, philosophical empiricism is defined in such an absolute way; which causes philosophical empiricism to be an inaccurate philosophical position from which to address all aspects of human life. Philosophical empiricism is defined as “the belief that all human knowledge arises from sense experience.” (Nash, 1999, page 254) Yet, medical empiricism is so far to the other extreme as to be insulting, while this empiricism is still said to be based on all sensory experience; only the scientific sensory experience is valued and counted. This form of empiricism excludes the experience of non-scientific persons. This is just one manner in which empiricism has “proved inadequate to explain many important human ideas”. (Nash, 1999, page 254) I believe that human truth is in a combination of empiricism and rationalism. Although, sensory data can inform us of the external world; yet, reason gives humanity access to equally important intangibles.
Rationalism and empiricism were two philosophical schools in the 17th and 18th centuries, that were expressing opposite views on some subjects, including knowledge. While the debate between the rationalist and empiricist schools did not have any relationship to the study of psychology at the time, it has contributed greatly to facilitating the possibility of establishing the discipline of Psychology. This essay will describe the empiricist and rationalist debate, and will relate this debate to the history of psychology.
Following the principles of the second camp, van Fraassen offers his alternative to scientific realism. His stance is known as constructive empiricism. According to van Fraassen, “science aims to give us theories which are empirically adequate; and acceptance of a theory involves a belief only that it is true”. The quote means that a theory must fit in an observable, empirical world and its descriptions about the world must be true. In addition, the theory must also save all phenomena related to theory and not just the observable ones. Van Fraassen also mentions that the acceptance of the theory involves more than belief. It requires certain commitments that reveal a pragmatic aspect to the acceptance of a theory.
We acquire and use knowledge every day and yet we rarely stop and think about the process through which we acquire knowledge. Epistemology is an area of philosophy that deals with the questions and theories concerning knowledge (Lawhead). There are multiple theories in epistemology with the main ones being rationalism, empiricism, and constructivism. Each theory seeks to answer the important epistemological questions in their own way with some being more convincing than others. I believe constructivism provides the strongest theory of knowledge by combining elements of both rationalism and empiricism in a manner that fixes some of the flaws in each theory.
“Science is a religion of skepticism. To escape from the microcosm of our childhood experience, from the microcosm of our culture and its dogmas, from the half-truths our parents told us, it is essential that we be skeptical about what we think we have learned to date. It is the scientific attitude that enables us to transform our personal experience of the microcosm into a personal experience of the macrocosm.
Introspection is a notoriously unreliable method for gathering information for scientific theories. There are 2 problems:
The scientific method is used to answer phenomenons in the world, whether they be specific or general. Experimenters use this tool solely to prove their claim and ensure the results are reliable. As stated by professor Frank Wolffs,” the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation