Note: This is part 3 of a five part series on how we can discover truth. Here are the other parts: part 1, part 2, part 4, and part 5. The entire series makes up the third chapter of my book, The Triple Path, which can be downloaded for free here in PDF and eReader formats or purchased at all major book retailers (in print and eReader formats).

 

This is this post in this series on truth, we continue the discussion of different ways we can discover truth.

5) Empirical Rationalism / The Scientific Method.

Empirical rationalism means applying reason and logic to our perceptions and experiences to come to conclusions. It means employing a systematic approach to gaining knowledge and finding answers to questions; it means following the evidence where it leads, even if it proves your previous ideas wrong. The scientific method is an application of empirical rationalism where scientists openly share their results and ideas. Others critique those results and ideas and build on them. This becomes an iterative process that builds more and more knowledge, leading to improved conclusions and ideas. It requires freedom of speech to work.

The scientific method involves observation and experimen­tation. Sometimes, scientists start with an unanswered question. The question might be more implicit than explicit and be as simple as “what more can we learn about this species living in this habitat?” Other times, scientists create and then test a hypothesis using the knowledge they have gained from observation, experience, trial and error, authorities, and previous applications of the scientific method.

Whether it be a formal hypothesis or question, or just an implicit question focused on gaining more knowledge, scientists design experiments or tests to disprove their hypothesis or to provide data to help answer the question. They then share those results with other people who examine and critique the methodology and results, and perhaps try out the experiments or tests themselves to see if they can replicate the results. If the results stand up to scrutiny, and can be replicated by others, then our level of confidence in the validity of the hypothesis or the answer to the question is increased. The hypothesis, however, will always be subject to further testing and attempts to disprove it. If further experiments disprove it, then it is rejected (Newtonian physics stood for hundreds of years until Relativity came along). If it stands up to further experimentation, then our level of confidence in it increases even more.

My description of the scientific method is simplified. There are as many ways of doing science as there are scientists. No matter the exact approach, the distinguishing characteristics of science are 1) subjecting one’s results to others’ review and criticism; 2) an analytic and systematic approach to solving problems and answering questions; 3) rejecting conclusions that are not supported by evidence; and 4) making a sincere, good faith effort to be unbiased and to base one’s views and opinions on the evidence, as opposed to trying to force evidence to fit one’s preconceived notions.

More than just being simplified, my description of the scientific method is also idealized. In real life, things do not happen so cleanly or clearly. Results are often ambiguous or misinterpret­ed. Even worse, just like everyone else, scientists can be dogmatic and set in their ways, refusing to change their opinions in the face of new evidence. For example, geologists regarded theories about plate tectonics and continental drift as ridiculous fringe ideas for decades before the ideas were accepted.

There are even problems with the process of what gets presented as science in the first place. A new theory usually will not be disseminated and get widespread acceptance unless it is published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scientists rightfully expect new claims to stand up to criticism and review. Publishing in peer reviewed journals helps provide a system that ensures experts in the field vet new scientific claims, but the people who decide what gets published in a scientific journal also have the power to suppress papers presenting theories with which they disagree, such as when a new concept contradicts their own pet theories. More and more often, reviewers reject papers because they contradict the reviewers’ political and ideological beliefs. Some so-called “academic” disciplines have become so infected with such practices that they are not worthy of any consideration or respect.1

Relying on the scientific method also means accepting that we are capable of correctly perceiving and understanding reality and causality, which (as I discussed above) is not necessarily something we can be sure of.

Most scientists are aware of the problems I have described above. Many of them really do care about maintaining the integrity of the scientific process, and they work to overcome or minimize its potential flaws and problems. Mistakes usually get corrected, eventually. If we adopt a “by their fruits ye shall know them” standard, the scientific method has proven itself over and over. No other approach to discovering factual truth has yielded better results. Do you use smartphones, the Internet, or modern medicine? Then you have already experienced some obvious fruits of the achievements of science. If you had a serious illness and your options were to get treatment from a modern doctor (who was trained based on our modern scientific understandings of biology, anat­omy, and physiology) or a tribal witch doctor from a hunter-gatherer tribe (whose “expertise” is based solely on observation, experience, trial and error, and authorities), who would you choose?

In part 4,  we will discuss the use of feelings, tradition, and religion as ways of discovering truth.