Why Scientific Knowledge is Readily Accepted than Non-Scientific Knowledge - Essay Example

Student’s Name Instructor Course Date Scientific inquiry entails the process of finding actual information through observation and experiment. They are the logical and rational steps undertaken by scientists to come up with conclusions. Such determinations are also made through hypotheses, laws, theories and deductions. Through analysis, one learns of the essential elements of science which include systematic, objective and logical elements. Scientific research is based on the transformation of deductive logic into valid hypotheses, then to theory and finally into law. For scientific hypotheses to be accepted by the scientific community, the hypotheses and theories have to be tested and verified by other scientists. On the other hand, a non-scientific inquiry is accessed through revelation, senses, experience and intuition. Objective testing is therefore not conducted on non-scientific methods since this knowledge holds that it cannot be understood by scientists, but rather by mystical experiences, religious revelations or literary deconstructionism. Why scientific knowledge is readily accepted than non-scientific knowledge To prove the correctness of a scientific law, experiments can be conducted several times by different individuals and the results should always be as dictated by the law. With non-scientific methods, results are derived from mere predictions or forecasting with assistance from strong feelings or hunches, which do not produce similar results all the time (Dash, 2005). However, others argue that there is no fundamental difference between the two methods while citing examples. Having car trouble is not an uncommon phenomenon especially during the age of revolutionary technology. However, my experience is derived from an awkward incident of using my grandparents’ car to cover a distance that is not commonplace for the old automobile. With several hiccups along the way, the car had to visit the garage where I expected to receive top of the line diagnostics and service. Upon reaching the garage, the older and more experienced gentleman who was to be my mechanic diagnosed the problems through a hunch which would later be confirmed by the diagnostic scanner which I had stubbornly requested. His belief in his experience, intuition and abilities did not warrant further confirmation despite my stubbornness. Another instance was when I thought that I had a gluten narrow mindedness. On the off chance that the theory was valid, I was expecting if somehow I stopped eating sustenance containing gluten my issue would disappear, but I confirmed that the likelihood that I quit eating gluten and the issue still holds on was high. In the non-scientific inquiry, you may build up a speculation and afterward search for proof to affirm (as opposed to misrepresenting) that theory. For example, someone was driving an automated silver car, and he experienced some cuts, I started building up a speculation that the drivers of silver autos are forceful and terrible drivers. I searched for proof in support of this by inquiring as to whether they had experiences with forceful drivers in silver cars.I searched for blog entries by individuals whining about close misses with silver vehicles, I came across some cases, and several illustrations that proved I was correct. In the non-logical inquiry, you may likewise create thoughts that can't be distorted. "There is an option universe that we can't interface with in any capacity in which I am rich," for example. If we can't interface with or speak with this option universe in any capacity, there is no real way to test the theory. Scientific principles which are defined as statements made based on a series of repeated experimentation and observation which describes some aspects of this world. Therefore, different approaches towards making these conclusions would result in a variance of the scientific principles. The positivist approach, for instance, champions the notion that ‘factual’ knowledge can only be obtained from observation (the use of senses) as well as measurement. This method implies that the researcher’s role is limited to data collection and interpretation whereby the findings are often quantifiable and observable. This method of inquiry, therefore, assumes no vested human interests by the researcher during the study where the researcher has to focus only on the facts. In positivism, the position that holds is that the purpose of knowledge is to describe the phenomena individuals’ experience, but only if it can be observed and measured. Beyond that, a positivist researcher would hold the position of impossibility. The shortcomings of the positivist approach are that for valid information and knowledge sources, the approach relies mostly on experience whereas concepts such as space and time have no relevance for the experience. Also, the approach takes the assumption that all processes can be interpreted as a variation of relationships or actions between individuals. Finally, the positivism approach relies heavily on the status quo thus the studies are not descriptive, hence provide no in-depth insight into certain issues. The interpretivism approach to social science, on the other hand, opposes the positivism approach to natural science. This method of scientific inquiry integrates the human element into the study whereby the researchers start from the position that the available knowledge about reality (or the domain of human action) can only be accessed through social constructs such as shared meaning, language, instruments and consciousness. The development of the interpretive philosophy relies mainly on the critique of the positivist approach (Lather, p. 39). The approach, otherwise known as the qualitative approach requires the researcher, as a social actor to appreciate the diversity of people and since the approach relies more on meaning, it often employs several methods to reflect on the various aspects of the research. For example, the interpretivist approach is based on data collection methods such as observations and interviews which indicate that secondary data is also popular with this approach. It is important to point out that the meanings of the research usually emerge as the research draws towards the end. The common variations of interpretive inquiry include hermeneutics, phenomenology, and symbolic interactionism. Hermeneutics is defined as the philosophy of understanding and interpretation, and it mainly deals with wisdom literature and biblical texts. Phenomenology refers to the tradition which seeks to provide an understanding of the world through the direct experience of the phenomenon. Symbolic interactionism, on the other hand, incorporates the use of symbols as social objects with shared cultural meaning. Due to the subjective nature of the interpretivism approach, primary principles, in this case, cannot be generalized as the data contains significant amounts of personal values and viewpoints. On the other hand, this research approach allows for in-depth research into cross-cultural differences leadership and ethics issues which also provides reliable and honest data thus can prove to be a legitimate source of information and knowledge. Critical inquiry, on the other hand, refers to the procedure of gathering and evaluating assumptions and ideas from different perspectives to produce a final and well-reasoned analysis and understanding which consequently lead to new questions, applications, and ideas. Critical inquiry assumes that the biases of contemporary society have to be addressed to make the world a better place. Therefore, this approach insists that research should be focused on exposing these injustices such as classism, heterosexism, racism and sexism, and finding practical ways to make valuable transformations. Lather wrote that ‘there are many ways to do science. Positivism, with its claims of mathematical procedures and methodological objectivity, is one way. Critical inquiry with its belief of no transhistorical, culture-free, disinterested way of knowing is another’ (p.47). Critical research must, therefore, meet several requirements to ascertain its validity. The first is that it rejects the positivistic notions of truth, rationality, and objectivity which propose that individuals can control their destinies by applying techniques derived from empirical science. The second requirement is that it must seek to uncover elements of the dominant social order which derail the pursuit of critical democratic goals. The third is that the approach is conceived about practice and solely exists to improve such common practices. For instance, the creation of a bricolage would provide for a socially polysemic and fair approach towards the creation of more textual research readings. Therefore, Critical approach posits that the proposed theories of information and knowledge held dear by social scientists and educators revolve around power and its distribution. The critical inquiry thus deals with interviews, literature reviews and surveys as the most common sources of data collection. Data interpretation, on the other hand, revolves around the resonance, correlation and the themes surrounding the topic as perceived by the researcher. As a non-scientific method of inquiry, credibility, validity, and reliability of data in the sense of experimental and scientific methods are not valued in this methodology mainly because the empirical and ontological foundations of the critical inquiry do not provide for knowledge objectification. In conclusion, the criteria for research for scientific and non-scientific principles is determined by various varying paradigms, each with valid reasons for their authenticity, but not without their shortcomings. In a nutshell, the positivism approach predicts, the interpretivism approach understands while the critical approach emancipates. Sociologists who tend to rely so much on positivist theories often find similarities in their social perspectives despite the facts against such ideas. Interpretive sociologists, on the other hand, aim to rectify the conflict of interest through understanding human social tendencies while considering others’ viewpoints and observations. Finally, critical sociologists often question conclusions to improve knowledge quality by disapproving the incorrect findings, while uncovering new truths. Although there are several slight differences to the research approaches, the fundamental differences remain small at best, depending on the type of research to be conducted. Works Cited Lather, Patti. "Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: teaching research in education as a wild profusion." International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 19.1 (2006): 35-57. Web. 16 Mar. 2017. LTU, Lia Aston Web Officer, and Nirod K. Dash, Dr. "Module: Selection of the Research Paradigm and Methodology." Research Methods Resource - Selection of the Research Paradigm and Methodology. N.p., 25 June 2005. Web. 16 Mar. 2017. Read More