Philosophical Foundation
of Scientific Research
Gurudas Das
NIT Silchar
What scientific research is all
about?
EMPIRICAL
** * * * * * ** * * * * *
*
*** * * * * * * * * ** * * * *** *** *
EVENTS
* ** *
* *
…………… >
. .
*
* * + + + * 8 8 * *M (
WORLD
*
*
* + + | + #
Cosmic
World
Empirical Physical
World World
Social
World
Cosmic World
Cosmic World
Physical World
Social World
WORLD OF
REAL WORLD THEORY
OR HUMAN OR
THE DOMAIN OF MIND THE DOMAIN
PROTOCOLS OF
(P-DOMAIN) CONSTRUCTS
(C-DOMAIN)
P-DOMAIN C-DOMAIN
1. Protocols are 1. Constructs are
matters of matter of
observations. imagination.
2. It has no 2. It is
CONTRAST organization of its systematically
BETWEEN own. organized and
THE TWO logically connected.
DOMAINS
3. It is by definition 3. It may not be
directly observable. directly observable.
4. It is inexact. 4.It can be exact.
STUDY OF THE EMPIRICAL WORLD
NATURAL SOCIAL HUMANITIES
SCIENCE SCIENCE
& ENGG
WHAT IS SCIENCE?
SCIENCE IS AN ENTERPRISE, WHICH ATTEMPTS TO
DEVELOP SYSTEMATIC SECULAR KNOWLEDGE
ABOUT REALITY THAT IS SOMEHOW VALIDATED
EMPIRICALLY.
SCIENCE ATTEMPTS TO SECURE AND ADVANCE
“OBJECTIVE” KNOWLEDGE ABOUT “REALITY” ON THE
BASIS OF EMPIRICAL FINDINGS (AS OPPOSED TO
“SPECULATION”). THE INTENT IS TO “LEARN” THE
TRUTH, NOT INVENT OR INTUIT IT.
APPROACHES TO
EPISTEMOLOGY
Theory of
Theory of Being Knowledge
• IDEALISM • EMPIRICISM
• REALISM • RATIONALISM
THEORY OF
BEING/ONTOLOGY
• What can be said to exist?
• What is a thing?
• What it is ?
• How it is ?
• How much it is ?
• Where it is??
ONTOLOGY/THEORY
OF BEING/WHAT IS
IDEALISM REALISM
•External world is only the
projection of our mind
•Identification of objects with ideas
•Reality as consisting in or
IDEALISM depending upon minds or ideas; no
material objects or external realities
exist apart from our knowledge or
consciousness of them, the whole
universe thus being dependent on
the mind.
• What is
Travertine ?
REALISM
•Material objects exist externally to us and
independently of our sense experience.
•Truth consists in the mind’s correspondence
to reality.
•Physical objects exist independently of their
being perceived.
What is
Carcross?
REALISM
IDEALISM
What is It?
IDEALISM VS REALISM:
CONVERGENCE
IDEAS/
MIND KNOWLEDGE/
PRECONCEIVED
NOTIONS
PR
PR
PR
SENSES REALITY
EPISTEMOLOGY
Theory of
Theory of Being Knowledge
• IDEALISM • EMPIRICISM
• REALISM • RATIONALISM
Empiricism
EMPIRICISM
• General empiricist thesis: That all knowledge is
derived from experience on the grounds either that
• All that we know is directly concerned with sense
experience or derived from it by strictly experimental
means, that is, learning, association, or inductive
inference, or
• All that we know is dependent on sense experience in
that all the materials for knowledge are directly
derived from sense experience, or
• All that we know is dependent on sense perception in
that even though we can know some things a priori ,
this is only in a relative sense, since the having of
experience is a general precondition for being said to
have such knowledge.
That which I can
prove to my
senses is true
Human Sensory
System
Sensory System Sense Organs Sense Activity
Olfactory System Nose Smelling
Gustatory Tongue Testing
Perception System
Ocular System Eyes Seeing
Somato Sensory Skins Touching
System
Auditory System Ears Hearing
Ground
Real Sensory Intellec
Mind t/ Brain Conscio Reality
Object Organs
usness
Perceived
What is the
nature of
empirical
knowledge?
Sensory Truths are
Objective Truth
obvious.
Establishes We interact with our
correspondence with environment through
the objective reality our sensory systems
Sensory truths are
relative and localized.
Because of the
changeability of the
world of sense, sense
knowledge lacks the
certainty and
infallibility that true
knowledge requires.
Sensory
Truths are
not infallible
•Sense cognition cannot by
themselves attain universality.
•What we know from sense
experience are the appearances of
things in relation to our senses
Problems •If we were to depend entirely on
with sense experience. We would get a very
meager knowledge about the
Empiricism phenomenon of the world.
•Our senses cannot tell us anything
about the past, distant and future.
•Our knowledge will be limited to the
present and will be not be universal.
•Empiricism leads to Skepticism
• Skepticism
• Doubt and disbelieve every
settled opinion, theory or
doctrine
Problems with •Everyone must judge himself
Empiricism-II what is true or false, real or
unreal, right or wrong, according
to his own feelings and sensations.
• There can be no universal
agreement among men with
regard to anything.
RATIONALISM
•Truth is not sensory
•Truth can be derived
intellectually through
deduction
•Reason is the source of
knowledge
.
Rationalism
RATIONALISM
•Truth is not sensory
•Truth can be derived intellectually through deduction
•Reason is the source of knowledge
•Because of the changeability of the world of sense,
sense knowledge lacks the certainty and infallibility
that true knowledge requires
One can arrive at
truth by means of
deduction.
RATIONALISMcan
Knowledge
best be achieved by
a priori means.
It is possible to have knowledge without
having sensory experiences.
There is knowledge of logic and its laws
or rules that are based upon reasoning
and not sensory experience.
RATIONALISM
There is a knowledge that is innate or
born inside of us, that there are forms of
knowledge that exists within our minds
from the time we are born.
While the rationalist can explain knowledge
of Mathematics and Logic , how are the
rationalists to explain knowledge of the
external world?
Sensory knowledge is not perfect. But
neither is rational knowledge. Both should
Limitations
be considered inseparable. And both should
be considered necessary to any knowledge.
of
Rationalism
Rationalism and Empiricism should not be
considered opposing ideas. There should be
a philosophy of Rational
Empiricism or Empirical Rationalism.
Criticism
Kantian Synthesis
Empiricism
+ Rationalism =
Criticism
•Experience can not explain the
characters of universality.
•For explaining the characters of
universality, we need some elements
in knowledge which are due to the
nature and constitution of the mind
which knows.
CRITICISM •What is involved in the very nature
of our mind must be true of all minds.
•Space, time, causality, substantiality,
etc., are such forms and ideas or
categories which govern all
knowledge because they are inherent
in the mind of all rational being like
us.
•These are the a priori elements of
human knowledge because they are
not derived from experience but
come from within the mind
whenever it knows anything.
•Experience supplies the data or
materials of knowledge in the form
of sensations.
CRITICISM--II •These are interpreted by the mind
through the application of the a
priori forms and categories .
•These a priori forms and categories
may be termed as “Intuiton”.
•It is in this way that we get our
knowledge.
Theory of
Theory of Being Knowledge
Intuition
Philosophical Foundation of
Research
How to acquire knowledge ?
Reasoning for Scientific Enquiry
LOGIC OF LOGIC OF
INDUCTION DEDUCTION
LOGIC OF
INDUCTION
Inductive Reasoning
• Particular to general
• Bottom-Up Approach
• Francis Bacon is the father of inductive
reasoning
Inductive Reasoning
• The chair in the living room is red.
• The chair in the dining room is red.
• The chair in the bedroom is red.
• All the chairs in the house are red.
Inductive Reasoning
• Children in that house yell
• Every time you eat loudly when they play in
peanuts, you start their bedroom.
• I can hear children yelling
to cough. in that house.
• You are allergic to • Therefore, the children
peanuts. must be playing in their
bedroom.
Inductive Intuition at Play
• A recruiter conducts a study of recent hires who
have achieved success and stayed on with the
organization. She finds that they graduated from
three local colleges, so she decides to focus
recruiting efforts on those schools.
• A production manager examines cases of injuries on
the line and discerns that many injuries occurred
towards the end of long shifts. The manager
proposes moving from 10-hour to 8-hour shifts
based on this observation.
Induction based Action
• A market researcher designs a focus group to
assess consumer responses to new packaging for
a snack product. She discovers that participants
repeatedly gravitate towards a label stating “15
grams of protein.
• A defence attorney reviews the strategy
employed by lawyers in similar cases and finds an
approach that has consistently led to acquittals.
Application of Inductive
Reasoning Example 1
Application of Inductive
Reasoning Example 2
INDUCTIVE REASONING
Consider the Question:
WILL THE SUN RISE
TOMMOROW?
INDUCTIVE REASONING
•PARTICULAR TO GENERAL
•WHAT IS TRUE OF OBSERVED CASES IS ALSO TRUE
OF NON-OBSERVED CASES
•PROPOSITION OF REGULARITY
A1 is B1
A2 is B2
A3 is B3
A4 is B4
-
-
-
An is Bn
All A’s are B’s
Induction
STATISTICAL PREDICTION
PROPOSITION STATISTICAL
INDUCTION
OF REGULARITY PREDICTION
1
2 3
1. I HAVE MADE A SET OF OBSERVATIONS OF SITUATION X,
AND ON THE BASIS OF THESE I HAVE ESTABLISHED A
STATISTICAL PATTERN IN THE PAST INSTANCES OF THIS
SITUATION;
2. WHATEVER STATISTICAL PATTERN I HAVE OBSERVED
IN THE PAST WILL ALSO BE OBSERVED IN THE FUTURE;
3. THEREFORE I CONCLUDE THAT FUTURE OBSERVATIONS
OF SITUATION X WILL CONTINUE TO CONFORM TO THE
SAME STATISTICAL PATTERN AS THEY HAVE DONE IN
THE PAST.
LIMITATIONS
OF
INDUCTIVE
METHOD
Limitations of Inductive
Reasoning--I
• Sample Size: 100 dogs and all have fleas
• Generalization: All dogs have fleas
• May not be true in case of 101th dog
• Law of the Large Number, as x→∞, (=)
• Hume’s problem
Limitations of Inductive
Reasoning--II
• No 100% certainty
• Induction could not work in case of
incomplete information
• Subjective bias
• Confirmation bias
• Is the Sample representative?
The Fallacy of Composition arises when we assume
that something which is true of the part must also
be true of the whole.
Why inductive
reasoning is widely
used in Scientific
Research?
LOGIC OF
DEDUCTION
All men are mortal
Deductive Reasoning
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal
• General to Particular
• Top-down logic
• Aristotle is considered to be the father of
deductive reasoning
Deduction
Examples of Deduction
1. ALL POLITICIANS ARE CORRUPT;
2. PC IS A POLITICIAN;
3. THEREFORE, PC IS CORRUPT
1. ALL A’S ARE B;
2. C IS AN A
3.THEREFORE C IS B
SYLLOGISM
HYPOTHETICAL/
CATEGORICAL CONDITIONAL
SYLLOGISM SYLLOGISM
Structure of Categorical Syllogism
Major premise: All humans are mortal.
Minor premise: All Indians are humans.
Conclusion: All Indians are mortal.
• Major premise There are three categories in the
• Minor premise example: humans, mortal, and Indians.
• Conclusion • Mortal is the major term,
• Indians the minor term.
• humans is the middle term.
Both the premises are universal, as is the
conclusion.
EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL
SYLLOGISM
1. If the Demand Schedule for good X rises, its price will rise;
2. The demand schedule of good X is rising;
3. Therefore, its price will rise.
1. If A1 (and A2, A3,……….,An) are true, then B is true;
2. A1(and A2, A3, …………,An) are true;
3. Therefore B is true.
THE CORRECTNESS OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING IS
INDEPENDENT OF THE MATERIAL/FACTUAL TRUTH OF THE
PREMISES
1.ALL POLITICIANS HAVE TWO FACES
2. TRUMP IS A POLITICIAN;
3. THEREFORE TRUMP HAS TWO FACES.
THE NATURE OF FALLACIES
Semi-logical
Logical Fallacies/
Fallacies/Verbal
Formal Fallacies/
Fallacies/ Material Fallacies
Fallacy of
Fallacy of
Affirming
Composition
FALLACY OF AFFIRMING/LOGICAL FALLACY
A
antecedent
1. If A is true, then B is true; consequent Affirming the
2. A is true; antecedent
3. Therefore, B is true B
1. If A is true, then B is true;
Affirming the
2. B is true
consequent
3. Therefore, A is true.
C
1 If PC is a politician, then PC is corrupt; Affirming the
2. PC is corrupt consequent
3. Therefore PC is a politician.
,
D Affirming the
1. If the demand schedule for good X rises, its price will rise; consequent
2. The price of good X has risen;
3. Therefore, the demand for good X has risen.
Application of Deductive Logic
If a card has the letter “A” on one side, then it has the
number “2” on the other side.
A B 2 3
Turn over only those cards to discover
whether the rule was true or false
• Deductive approach follows the following stages:
• Deducing hypothesis from theory.
• Formulating hypothesis in operational terms and
proposing relationships between two specific
variables
• Testing hypothesis with the application of
relevant method(s). These are quantitative
methods such as regression.
• Examining the outcome of the test, and thus
confirming or rejecting the theory.
• Modifying theory in instances when hypothesis
is not confirmed.
MERITS OF DEDUCTIVE
REASONING
• Deductive reasoning can provide certainty
but it's scope is quite limited
• It is unlikely that given true premises, that
the conclusion arrived at using deductive
reasoning would be false
LIMITATIONS
OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING
• The conclusion of an inductive argument forms the premise of a deductive argument
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inductive Reasoning
I have examined 10,000 dogs.
And found that each one of them has flees.
Therefore, all dogs have flees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deductive Reasoning
All dogs have flees.
Jony is a dog.
Falsity might be carried over from
inductive to deductive reasoning
• If the inductive conclusion is false
(All 10,000 dogs examined had flees, therefore all dogs have fleas).
• This false conclusion might be used as the premise of a valid
deductive argument.
(Since all dogs have fleas, therefore this dog must have fleas).
• If the premise is false, the conclusion is false.
(This dog may indeed have fleas, but it is not a necessary consequence
of the fact that all dogs have fleas, because all dogs do not necessarily
have fleas, only 10,000 dogs had fleas at the time they were tested.)
• Researchers commonly arrive at inductive conclusions on the basis
of inadequate information, then argue deductively from their
induction.
Limitations of Deductive Reasoning
• If the initial statements are definitions, then
we are on firm ground.
• If the initial statements are inferences based
on observation (i.e. statements that arise from
inductive logic) then those initial statements
might not be true. Anything derived by
deductive logic from them could be false
• The truth (or verity) of the conclusion of a deductive
argument is dependent upon two things:
(1) The correctness (or validity) of the form of the argument
(2) The truth (or verity) of the premise.
The validity of the form is determined by the application of
established rules. So the only weakness of a deductive argument is
the truth value (verity) of its premises. Our conclusions are only as
good as our premises.
Our presuppositions will always determine our conclusions.
Interlinkages
HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD
EMPIRICAL WORLD
HYPOTHESIS FORMULATION
TESTING OF HYPOTHESIS
MAKING USING
OBSERVATION STATISTICAL
TOOLS
ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION
HYPO IS HYPO IS
STRENGTHENED WEAKENED
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN
C-DOMAIN AND P-DOMAIN NEW HYPO IS TO
IS CONFIRMED BE FORMULATED
IN CASE, THE HYPOTHESIS IS NOT DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE, THEN
EMPIRICAL WORLD
THEORY
HYPOTHESIS
DEDUCTION OF OBSERVABLE CONSEQUENCES
TESTING AGAINST REAL LIFE OBSERVATIONS
MAKING USE STATISTICAL ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION
OBSERVATIONS TOOLS
STRENGTHENED WEAKENED
PROCESS OF BASIC RESEARCH: AN OVERVIEW
THEORIES
CONCEPT LOGICAL
FORMATION DEDUCTION
LOGICAL
INFERENCE
HYPOTHESES
EMPIRICAL DECISION TO A/R
GENERALISATION
TEST OF HYPO
OBSERVATION
Theological stage
INTERLINKAGES
Metaphysical BETWEEN
stage INDUCTIVE THEORY AND DEDUCTIVE THEORY
(BETWEEN C-DOMAIN AND P-DOMAIN)
EMPIRICAL WORLD
Positivity
stage LAW OF THREE STAGES: August
Comte
INDUCTIVE OBSERVATIONS
Hypo
Testing
INTROSPECTION/
SUBJECTIVE
PERCEPTION INDUCTIVE
THEORIES
DEDUCTIVE THEORIES Positive
Knowledge
EMPIRICAL WORLD/OBJECTIVE REALITY
THEORY OF IDEALISM REALISM
BEING
THEORY OF RATIONALISM EMPIRICISM
KNOWLEDGE
KANTIAN CRITICISM
SYNTHESIS
METHOD FOR DEDUCTIVE INDUCTIVE REASONING
ARRIVING AT RESONING
TRUTH
KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE OBJECTIVE REALITY
THANKS
