Question Home

Position:Home>Philosophy> Can anyone explain methodological/phi


Question: Can anyone explain methodological/philisophical skepticism to me!?
I am trying to study for a test and I can't find an explanation that I understand, thanks! :)Www@QuestionHome@Com


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
Skepticism over methodologies usually arises over questions about the empirical (relying on your senses instead of your mind, faith, etc!. to discover truth) nature of the Scientific Method!. The scientific method, being reliant on data that happens in the "real" world, provides a powerful tool for analyzing the world around us, and helping to formulate sound theories about the nature of reality!.

However, this method is open to problems!. The classic argument against method consists of the inability to remove the scientist from the method!. When we conduct experiments based on a method we inadvertently add data into the situation!. also, when we experiment it usually happens in a controlled environment; which is hardly a mirror for the real world!. An oversimplified example could follow:

I have the hypothesis that bass drums are primarily annoying!.
I conduct an experiment where I take a drum and have people sit with their heads near it while I pound it for some time!. After this I ask if the participants found the drum to be annoying!.!.!.the majority answer that it was indeed unpleasant!. The experiment therefore proves that bass drums are annoying!. But this is not true!.!.!.we listen to these drums everyday in music and find that the opposite is actually true!.

This is known as logical positivism, and much of modern science has worked to insure against this kind of experimentation from happening!. But there still is skepticism about the nature of empiricism!. In the contemporary moment the arguments against methods tend to examine Scientific Method as it has played out historically, arguing that a kind of "positivism" still exists in the minds of scientists who rely on their understanding of theoretical knowledge as if it is actually "true" and not just "theory!."

For example, Einstein had to think outside of Newton's theory of gravity, which many physicists still felt was absolutely true in his time, in order to develop the Theory of Relativity; and after Einstein, Quantum Physics explores areas of theory that Relativity cannot account for!. All of this only points to the fact that knowledge in Science is not concrete, and that empiricism only provides more questions than answers about what is true!. So skepticism about method in science is arguably more healthy than accepting theories as being absolutely true!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Okay, let's take an example of God's existance, which is an epistemological question!. The proof of God's existance is that it exists in our consciousness, however we do not see god as a living entity such as animals birds etc!. Should we consider God existant or not!? A negativism in methadology would argue that because there is no living empirical proof of God's existance it mustn' exist!. However, a religious person might argue, that it is a matter of faith, not scientific empiricism!. Do you understand!?Www@QuestionHome@Com