Casual Reasoning & Science and Hypothesis - Essay Example

Causal Reasoning Coming to a conclusion by just based on enumeration is childish and precarious. Inductive reasoning contains more than analogy. The reasoning that comes from relation ship between cause and effect is very powerful because it is fact. The relationship between cause and effect gives you the fact, which is powerful. When we believe a thing we see for the effect and analyse for the cause. Some times the effect tells about the cause but the cause always may not speak about the effect it can cause, like in the case of oxygen and combustion. At times the word cause means not the fact but the sufficient condition. The need of oxygen for fire is sufficient condition and that cannot be blamed for the disaster caused for the fire. The conditions prevailing and which are necessary sometimes act as the sufficient condition. Though not necessary some conditions act as sufficient conditions in negative manner. Smoking cigarette causes Cancer is one such instance. It does not mean that not smoking cigarette will prevent cancer. Similarly the different types of causes will come before us in certain circumstances. They can be termed as remote and proximate causes. The remote cause is the cause for proximate one. Actually the final proximate is the effect and the penultimate proximate is the cause for the final. The penultimate proximate is the effect when the more remote one is considered as cause. For instance, A causes B, B causes C, C causes D. Then D is the effect of cause C and C is the effect of cause B. A is remote than B, B is remote than C and vice versa. Whether it is in everyday life or science the use of cause giving effect proposes a theory. We believe it when cause results in effect and we do not believe it if it fails to bring the effect. The assertion of universal proposition through a particular observation is inductive generalization. But when more than one attributes were present for more than one phenomenon then we take the help of analogy. When we are confirming a causal law with enumeration then it was done by number of analogies. Thus the criteria of analogical arguments apply to enumeration also; like in the case of blue litmus paper turning red when dipped in the acid. At times the enumeration is used to establish causal law in history. This can make us go unnoticing the negative aspects of those analogies. But the advance in learning gave rise to inductive procedures. It developed and depends upon: 1.The method of agreement 2.The method of difference. 3.The joint method of agreement and difference 4.The method of residues 5.The method of concomitant variation. If one or more instances of the phenomenon are under the investigation have more than one circumstance then the circumstance, which includes all the conditions can be considered as the cause. This helps in reducing the method of enumerating in conforming the effect. If ABCD cause WXYZ and AEFG cause WXYZ then from the enumeration BCD and EFG were removed and A is considered as the cause. Sometimes the absence of agreement helps us in finding the right cause. Thus this helps in reducing enumeration but not result in finding fact and cause in all the instances. In some social instances like spending of money on education the results in different contexts were mutually contradictive. If in one case the spending of money yielded good results, the same spending of money on teachers’ salaries did not yield good results. So this contradicts the belief that the more spending leads to good results in education. In contrary to method agreement the method of difference watches for difference between two similar occurrences. If all the people who ate ice beans got a particular disease it is not prior to say that the beans was cause for that disease. Instead of it we have find the different foods they have taken. This difference will make out the cause in this case. Again there arises a case of both agreement and difference. As the experiments proved that testosterone was responsible for male aggression at the same time there are other causes for male aggression. So taking in to agreement the factor of testosterone one has to search the differences of causes in various males, which result in aggression. When ABCD cause WXYZ and BCD cause XYZ by agreement and difference method one can resolve that A is the cause of W and BCD were the causes of XYZ. The cause of difference formed basis for many scientific investigations. In the course of investigation the difference is created between two identical species and the result is observed. For example, in mice certain proteins were removed and tested resistance for a disease. The difference in the proteins of zenes of two mice establishes the fact of the cause of the disease. The difference created deliberately between two instances established the cause for attack of yellow fever. Dr. Lazeour made himself bitten with the mosquito affected with yellow fever and died of that. Four non-immune persons were quarantined and protected from mosquitoes were made to live in a house affected by the clothes and utensils used by the patients died of yellow fever. Those persons were safe. This difference proves that the yellow fever was caused by mosquitoes and not by the patients who were suffering from it. This theory of difference helps us to find out causal laws, which were above the theory of agreement. As such the theory disconfirms up to some extent the theory of agreement. The method of agreement and difference constitute a combined method for scientific investigations, which is a combination of the above two. This theory leads to inductive inferences in number of scientific investigations. The Hepatitis B vaccine was found on the theory of agreement and difference by administrating the vaccine on a certain number of children who were not affected by hepatitis B and don’t have antibodies. The other group of children who were not tested for non-immunity also were administrated with the vaccine and in that group some children caught the disease. Thus the injection that caused immunity to the first group was the vaccine for the disease. Here both agreement and difference were found. Similarly the infant mortality also developed a false belief that low weight was the actual cause of mortality. But actually the premature deliveries were proven to be a major cause for infant mortality. In this case the agreement in common the low weight was taken on one side and the premature deliveries on the other. The mortality rate in the first group was less. The next method is about subtraction. To find a weight of a substance first we have to find the weight of empty container and next the weight of the container with substance. The subtraction of the former from the latter gives accurate weight of the substance taken. The revolutionary method that paved the way for discovery of the planet Neptune was the method of residue. A scientist calculating the times of rotations of the planets in the orbits observed that there is time gap of 2min in the movement of Uranus. This residue was investigated and the planet Neptune was found beyond Uranus. This method of residue (here residue of time in calculation) established the mathematical astronomy. This method can be considered as inductive method rather than a deductive method, as it will give us probable circumstances but not the complete result. The further investigation based on the probability given by residue leads us to the result. Hence this one is considered as inductive method. Still there are some mysteries in the universe, which are unsolved with the above methods. The force towards sun was exerted on the spacecraft defies the inverse square law. This means that the theories of investigation may differ according to the context. But the above mentioned inductive methods are not the complete theories that propel scientific investigation. They have their own limitations. As long as the difference do not dominate the commonality the induction works. But when it happen the inductive method fails to establish the causal law. In a supposition of scientific drinker who drinks different type of alcohols every day with a common element soda will deteriorate his health and the conclusion he will take is the reason for the ill health is soda, which is not really true. So as it was said above as long as the difference does not dominate the affect of commonness the inductive methods will show ways to yield results. Moreover they were the methods, which depend on hypothesis and test hypothesis, but not the paths of discovery. The instances that can investigate under these methods were the Genome project identifying common Genes in common disease suffering persons and the surveying of the divorce rate in the women of various categories. Science and hypothesis Every Scientific work that has been considered as a milestone in history did set right the defective state of the art methods and developed logic. The development of science made human life more comfortable and gifted knowledge to future generations. It made every thing along with learning a pleasure. It reduces phenomenon by using logic. Science starts with a quest to no facts. But just collection of facts is not science. The ability of explaining the facts constitutes the foundation of Science. Explanation of facts itself may not constitute science or reasoning at times. If the International crisis was explained for the late coming to the office, it will be out rightly rejected though it was true. But if we lie that our child was sick for the late coming to the office, then it may be excused though it was false. So the relevance of the explanation is also important. At the same time every relevant explanation may not be scientific. The scientifically relevant explanation needs evidence and acceptance of change implicitly. A number of matters that were considered as facts had been changed in course of development of science. But the unscientific explanations like evil spirits causing diseases and the intelligence in the planets, which keep them intact, were believed without being questioned, as majority accepted them. In case of true statements the uncertainty will remain and in the case of false circumstances there will not be any uncertainty to reject it. This forms the basis of science. If the deduced explanation is false then the explanation is false. But a true deduction will indirectly confirm the explanation. The unscientific explanation also shows evidence but it was not testable. On the other hand the evidence in the scientific explanation is testable. When alternative hypotheses were available for a same case then one has to go beyond the relevance and testability. Science aims at achieving a system of explanatory hypothesis. Orderly progress in science requires that any theory fit with older theories. Not all the new theories fit into older ones. Some theories and inventions like relativity theory, discovery of radioactivity and spontaneous disintegration of the radium made mankind to relinquish older theories. The criteria, compatibility of the older theories may not be come to an end due to new ones. Some times though opposite in their views they may be true in particular conditions. This increases the scope of science. For instance, the conservation of matter or mass has extended its scope to conservation of mass-energy. The scientific hypothesis must testable and deductible like that of the Galileo’s experiment of falling bodies. But it will be more acceptable and testable if it is like the combination of Newton’s theory, which has both terrestrial and celestial mechanics in it. The theories, which are simple and true, are having more chances to be accepted by the future scientists than the theories, which are complex, though true. But the truth must be taken into consideration. Actually the Copernicus theory was simple. But if had the Ptolemaic theory (earth centred) is simple than Copernicus then it cannot withstand the future testability. So along with simplicity the testability and truth are the criteria for the scientific theories. Though it was not possible to account the present day scientific investigations, which are more complex, there is a chance of listing out simple and excellent theories and experiments. Eratosthenes’s experiment and logic in finding the circumference of earth calculating the deviation in the angle of the sun’s rays is accurate up to 5%. It is excellent as in those days there were no sensitive instruments like today. Galileo’s experiment of falling objects which proved that Aristotle was wrong in saying that the heavy objects will fall first down to earth. The measurement of the weight of the earth by Cavendish. Foucault’s experiment using pendulum to prove that earth revolves on its own axis. With actual scientific thinking in mind we can categorise the scientific patterns into seven stages. Identifying a problem is the first stage. No scientist can think scientifically unless there is a problem to address. The questions and explanations for them constitute the scientific theories. Devising the preliminary hypothesis constitutes the 2nd stage. Every scientist collects the evidence with some preliminary hypothesis, which may not immediately yield final result. But it is essential to move forward. Though there are in numerous things and facts to collect on cannot do with all of them. But a thorough investigation through preliminary hypothesis should make investigator to move in a factual way. Collecting of additional facts is a laborious task. As the initially puzzling facts need some evidence to understand and explain, it is difficult to any body to collect all the facts. But hard work is also a part of good Science. Identifying problem and devising the preliminary hypothesis also were interdependent. Formulating the explanatory hypothesis makes us find that any successful investigation reveals that the facts that are required to prove are available easily. The end product contains the aspects of identifying the problem and the methods of devising the preliminary hypothesis. Coming to the conclusion will not be mechanical. Careful interpretation and explanation of facts must be done with proper evidence. A really truthful will explain not only the facts concerned in identifying and solving the problem but also the other facts, which lead the scientist or investigator to that point. And those facts, which are beyond the preliminary hypothesis, are useful in other circumstances also. But they are not proved but confirmed as in the case of Big Bang Theory of Universe. Scientists with their most sensitive instruments were not yet successful viewing the ultimate matter, but they are going back into time consistently confirming the Big Bang Theory. Testing the consequences is the next part of the scientific investigation. The consequences evolved in an investigation were tested in future with much more greater sensitivity and accuracy. The Galileo’s, Foucault’s experimental results were tested after them with much more accuracy and providing more evidence to believe. But the proposed structure of early Universe was not yet tested, as it was not available. So the facts that permit us to be tested were being tested. The facts, which are beyond our limit, will be confirmed continuously in time until they were tested. The findings of latest telescopes supported the Big Bang Theory impressively. Similarly the Einstein’s observation that gravity is a space-time curve was being confirmed as the satellite with gyroscope was crossing poles of Earth. Applying the theory involves not only explanation but the usage of that explanation to our needs and comforts. It should also help us in future investigations, thus enhancing our knowledge. The application of Theories of Newton and Einstein helped us in investigations about Solar System and Universe. We want to understand the world though science. The above-mentioned facts were not only for the scientists but for the every person having scientific thinking and acting according to the facts observed. In 2000 the Genome project was completed. It will certainly help in well being of human race in future. It is the continuance of the discovery of DNA by Watson and crick just 50 years back. The quest to solve the puzzles of life that how genes were characterised and how the information passes from one generation to the other makes not only a scientist but also any human being enthusiastic. Some enthusiastic scientists were researching the genes for that thing. The fact may lie in fats, sugars, proteins and nucleic acids. Fifty years back the DNA has no importance. But now after knowing the concept of Genes it was everything that constitutes life. After that it was discovered that the hereditary information was stored in a protein. When Watson and Crick started their investigation the preliminary hypotheses available to them was telling that their search might fail. But they did not give up and started believing that DNA carried the Genetic message. After confirming the DNA structure the structure of Nucleic acids was investigated and more details were drawn. By using some models prepared by balls and rods they tried a number of ways of chemical bonding and came to a conclusion about the behaviour and the structure. The solution will not come from a single person or a group. The findings of number of persons, groups and institutions must be taken into account and the investigation should be done in multi pronged way, removing the lapses and discovering the new facts not only from our findings but also from other’s findings. The research at Columbia University and the X-ray diffraction images of the DNA helped Watson and Crick to finalise the structure of DNA. By studying and manipulating several models they confirmed and proved the double helix model of DNA. It is wondering and miraculous that how a single chain is having the life and hereditary information scribed in it. After formulation of hypothesis it has to be confirmed. They constructed the model by their theoretical assumptions pointing to the X-ray diffraction models. At last the double helix model was completed. The 128-line report made by them permanently altered the scientific world of Biology. From that point of struggling for DNA structure, now we are able to decode the structure and forming various DNA chains, which helps us in making new drugs and medicines. Progress in science will not be straightforward. In addition to laboratory investigations, scientific methods an insight into the subject and creativity is also necessary. When preliminary hypothesis is against us the work will be still more difficult. Physics also do now have such clashes. Einstein’s theory states that it was impossible to even light to escape from black hole and quantum mechanics states that it is impossible to have a more velocity than light. These two facts mutually contradict each other. It seems that either there are more laws to find out or lawlessness in physics still exist. One way is that summarising the facts, theories, findings of great scientists make mankind in future solve the mutual contradictions and lawlessness in science if any. The extraordinary beliefs about the heavenly bodies in 16th century were removed and original facts were replaced. The smooth tuned rough, the elegance turned into ordinary and the stubbornness of the heavenly bodies was discovered and established. These observation when they were made were opposed by contemporaries of the persons proposed them. They even refused to listen and see the explanations and facts. Galileo even mapped moon, planets and their orbits. Now they were accepted as facts by understanding his logic and explanation with evidence. The difference in the location of Jupiter and stars in line make Galileo’s theory more difficult and still he succeeded in explaining. The believed and accepted theories give prediction but not deduction if they were not true. But observing the truth and explaining with evidence gives deductions what Galileo gave centuries back. Actually he was in a position of not believing what he has seen. After rigorous observations and calculations he relinquished the older notions and formulated new theories. He established the existence of four moons of Jupiter, which were now called, after his name. Though many were discovered after him the first credit goes to him. The classification in Botany and Zoology can be considered as hypothesis. With out that classification the investigation cannot be done. As a result it is considered as hypothesis. Some explained the facts in a religious pattern others explained it theoretically having no empirical and practical evidences. But the historians who concentrate on just reporting facts did not bother about hypothesis. The people and intelligent minds can interpret the facts, which were informed, in different ways. Though it is past it does not deserve bare description. It needs some hypothesis to understand and interpret. But the interpretation must be reasonable and simple and realistic. The historian’s problem starts from scant evidence. There is no one except the ruins and writings available. One cannot know who and why they were made actually at that time. But one thing can be truly estimated due to modern technology. That is the calculation of age of the things found. This makes things a bit easier as one can estimate the hypothesis up to some extent depending on the predicted time. Here History, physics and science coincide to make people know the evolution. The evolution termed in Biological Sciences can be called as technical history. This makes work of historians more simple and at the same time more complex also. The estimating the things become simpler but the interpretation becomes complex. The classification must be done scientifically as it was termed as hypothesis. Both practical and theoretical thing lead us to classification. The theoretical classification depends upon the explanation and practical classification depends upon observations. The classification done by scientist involves knowledge along with the facts and observations. Knowledge is the facts and observations organised in a executable way. If the facts and observations are bricks and cement, the knowledge is a palace built by them. First of all the characteristic nature of a thing is the basis for classification. The characteristics depend upon the attributes. The classification done along these lines makes the study easier. Hypotheses in history were illuminated by biological considerations. The understanding of social, economical and scientific attributes of people in certain time will bring a radical change in understanding history. So historians are advised to develop such hypotheses before studying history. Read More