Empirical Evidence in Different Areas of Knowledge - Term Paper Example

Running Head: Empirical Evidence in Knowledge Progress Empirical Evidence in Different Areas of Knowledge Over the years, the importance and applicability of empirical evidence in progressing knowledge in different areas has become one of the most contentious issues, not only in scientific fields but also in art based fields. The major reason behind this is the fact that both science and other knowledge oriented endeavors acclaim empirical evidence as an integral part of their progressive advancement. In order for us to understand the various ways through which empirical evidence can be used to progress different areas of knowledge, it is imperatively valuable to have a clear understanding of what empirical evidence entails. Empirical evidence is a term that is coined from the word empiricism- which is the core of science practice (Argote, 1999, p. 39). On its part, science can be regarded as empirical in the sense that it directly relies on observation and/or experience for it to explain or describe phenomena. This implies that an empirical or a scientific approach must be based on explanations that can directly be observed repeatedly, are replicable, and must also be inductive. In this respect therefore, empirical evidence is any detail that originates from, or is based on experience or on observation. This is what we commonly refer to as empirical data. On the same note, any information that rely on observation or experience alone, and often do not give due regard to theory or for system, is regarded as the empirical basis for which a particular theory rests. On the other hand, empirical laws are those that are verifiable or are capable of being, by experiment or observation, be disproved (Argote, 1999, p. 41). From the above principle definitions of the components of empirical evidence, we can now categorically define empirical evidence as evidence gathered from observations. This can be both through direct natural observation or the experimental observation. On its part, the naturalistic observation is characterized by detailed phenomenon observation within the natural setting it is in, and as at the time of the observation. Experimental observation involves the manipulation of an independent variable so that its effects can be observed against another variable that is dependent. In comparison and contrast, it is much more reliable to go by experimental evidence because naturalistic observations are usually more vulnerable to bias by the researcher. As a theory of knowledge, empirical evidence is eminently a fancy way through which different categories of ‘truth’ were enumerated by philosophers like Kant, Descartes, and Aristotle in advancing or progressing different knowledge areas. It was recognized as an area of much contention in philosophy, especially with reference to its application in natural sciences as well as the social sciences. Through empirical evidence, experienced facts are described and can only be tested through the use of the senses. The truth of the matter here can be found by comparing empirical evidence to the logical or mathematical facts, both of which solely depends reasoning, for example the process of solving a quadratic problem (Argote, 1999, p. 56). In addition, empirical evidence can be referred to as the raw measurable data that is used in almost all knowledge areas to develop and at the same time test a theory. In general terms, all empirical data must be analyzed after collection. This analysis is usually aimed at seeking a certain pattern, through which, and involving other inputs like previous theories, hunches, and instinct, the expected theory gets developed (Backhouse, 1997, p. 205). After the theory has been developed, experiments are then developed to put the theory into test. There has been a popular belief that experiments can prove theories, but contrary to this, it has now been known beyond reasonable doubts that experiments can only be used to disprove such theories. The theories will then provisionally be accepted if the experiment results are, after analysis, not able to disprove the theory, but instead become compatible to it. One crucial fact about empirical evidence and which makes it applicable in many areas that require knowledge progress is that it is not only based on subjective experience but is based on real experiences or facts that must be reproducible, shareable in public experience, and are objective (Valsiner, 2000, p. 66). This fundamentally implies that empirical evidence is not merely simple and plain facts but those that are relevant, whether they do or they don’t support a particular hypothesis. As mentioned earlier above, empirical evidence as a concept is applicable in science as well as other fields such as criminal investigations by the police, law, among other practices and fact-based investigations. However, it is important to note at this point that empirical evidence significantly contrasts with other non-empirical evidence. These non-empirical evidence includes but are not limited to dreams, hallucinations, illusions, revelations as well as other forms of evidence that are non-empirical but not including logic and mathematics, which are both non-empirical but are not subjective in nature (Valsiner, 2000, p. 67). Our application of empirical evidence in law differs from our use of the same in science for example. On the one hand, if an investigator has the hypothesis that ‘person A killed person B’, and in the process finds many great facts that support the hypothesis such as a bullet cartridge and a smoking gun, verified fingerprints among others, then the investigator can be said to have enough proof of his/her case. In the case of science, there can never be enough supportive or positive evidence that can ever prove a given hypothesis. At the same time, it would only require one contradicting fact to necessitate such disproval. This differentiation gives us enough understanding that empirical evidence will always play varied roles in varied situations and circumstances. In all areas that empirical evidence is used to progress knowledge, the potential of its observations being replicable is a superb quality which is of key significance. As an example, this is one element that gives a distinction between religious or mystical traditions from science. The former two mainly relies on faith, visions or dreams that are found in spiritual beings’ or sacred texts’ authority as their major knowledge basis, which is contrary to scientific approaches. A good example of this proposition is the fact that science does not whatsoever recognize human soul’s existence simply because this is a form of knowledge that cannot be subjected to empirical observation. Similarly, it is incoherent for science to attempt to prove or disprove God’s existence because of the general belief that God is transcendent, or rather His existence is beyond nature (Backhouse, 1997, p. 178). In effect, this confirms the skepticism of empirical evidence towards all that cannot be observed in replication. Empirical evidence restricts its limits to phenomena which can be observed by more than one individual. For example, if someone makes a claim that the largest river in the world is the Thames, there must be the possibility of others going there to make a confirmation to the contention. In any case, thereafter, a larger river than the Thames happens to be found in any other place, the new evidence, according to empirical evidence, dictates that there must be a review of the opinions which must be guided by the new evidence. This further elaborates to us that empirical evidence has several ways in which it is able to play differentiated roles in knowledge progress in many areas and disciplines since it poses itself as a tool that is cross-cutting through multiple fields. However, there is a wide rift between the modern Western science and empiricism per se. In the lay man’s language, this implies that there is a contradicting distinction between science and modern science as such. As a matter of fact, there is, to large extent, direct reliance on experience by all cultures in their attempts to develop or advance their subsistence patterns and/or technologies. The major factor that is possessed by modern Western science and which makes it unique is the fact that its empiricism has been systematized over the years, particularly through formal experimentation and measurement (Valsiner, 2000, p. 83). The other characteristic that is of central concern to the concept of empirical evidence in its endeavor to progress knowledge in different ways is its hypotheses principle. This is importantly so especially by its hypotheses testing method. Basically, hypotheses are statements concerning relationships which have the possibility of being depicted to be true or untrue. This simply means that they are if or then predictive statements (Backhouse, 1997, p. 187). For example, if we correctly deduce theory X to hold, then we would beyond no reasonable doubt expect to make an observation Y. This follows from the basic principle that all scientific methods must proceed through testing or falsification of hypotheses against all available data that can be empirically observed. However, we may or we may not observe the predicted Y, a result that would come readily to falsify our tentative X hypothesis. In any case that we come across a hypothesis which seems to defy empirical testing, then we must realize that we haven’t proven our hypothesis to be correct. Rather, all that we have done is simply to show that it applies or works, or also that it accomplishes our goal of understanding or explaining a certain phenomena. In all possible areas of its application, empirical evidence always makes the assumption that in future, it is likely to find more complete or adequate explanations. Generally, as is the case in forensics for example, the legal or medical professions likewise apply empirical evidence, making science particularly present itself as an argumentation form which is quite unique by its own means, and with equally unique aims. This difference precisely depicts itself just the same way sophistry contrasted itself from philosophy in the ancient Greek argumentation thought (Backhouse, 1997, p. 166). In this context, empirical evidence in all its applications poses itself as a compatible tool of knowledge progress in a myriad of areas as winning or as a means to a particular end, and not merely as an end in its own composition. In conclusion I can, with no doubt, state that the various ways in which empirical evidence can be used to progress knowledge are inexhaustible by such a small presentation as above. However, it is vividly clear that this concept cuts across all boundaries of knowledge, especially because most of them rely on the basic principle of empirical evidence, perception reliance. References: ARGOTE, LINDA (1999), Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining, and Transferring Knowledge. London: Routledge. p. 39, 41, 56 BACKHOUSE, ROGER (1997), Truth and Progress in Economic Knowledge. London: Faber and Faber. p. 166, 178, 187, 205 VALSINER, JAAN (2000), Culture and Human Development: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 66, 67, 83 Read More