| YUKSEL.ORG
|
Are Scientific
Findings:
1) Perfect and absolute? 2) Less Accurate Than The Number "Pi"? 3) Just Succeeding Mirages? Edip Yuksel
(The graph, a cubue, is ommitted) What do you see in the above graph? This question can measure your spatial cognitive skills. Besides, it can tell us about your past experiences. Here we are interested with the second part. You are expected to see three different shapes in this graph. Your past visual experiences may or may not lead you to see all three different shapes. Most likely, you will initially notice a cube inside a bigger cube. If you concentrate a little bit more (do it now; I'm going to reveal it in the next phrase), you will see a solid cube carved from the corner. If you try further, you may see a slanted cube attached to the corner of a bigger cube. If the sequence of your observation is in the order mentioned above, then it shows that you are more familiar with little cubes inside bigger cubes; such as a desk in a room. What leads you to see the above picture in that way, is your most frequent visual experience with cubes or rectangular prisms. Your second most frequent visual experience determines your second perspective, and so on. Sneaky hypotheses In fact, the graphic is not three dimensional. It consists of vertical and horizontal lines in two dimensions. Our hypotheses sometimes shape our perception and interpretation stealthily. This is the worst case in conducting science. Scientists must work harder than detectives in order to unveil the assumptions hiding in their minds. The level of objectivity and relative accuracy of scientific research partially depends on the alertness of scientists against those sneaky hypotheses. Many experiments can be conducted to show that our observations or thinking process has a background, or history. This "history" resides in our memory cells in active or passive manner. It is common to call this resident as "opinion", "hypothesis", "experience", "subconscious", or "wisdom" depending on its behavior and power. This "history" looks like a living organism, an evolving one. This organism may sometimes create atmospherics during our new observation or may be a catalyst to a more accurate scientific conclusion. Only a brain with zero-mileage can be immune of that organism. Otherwise, the brain is dead. Hypotheses:
Human mind has some unique similarities with the computers. The allegory for a new born child's mind is an "almost empty hard disk" ("almost," because of a several month experience in the womb). A child, virtually does not have hypotheses (previous assumptions) to start. However, after the birth, the data from surrounding objects start pouring to child's brain through five channels. The early messages create primitive hypotheses in child's mind. Throughout the years, those early hypotheses pass through numerous automatic correction, modification and even refutation processes. Each experience or experiment either reinforces or modifies the previous hypotheses. The more cross-checking experience, the more accurate and polished hypotheses. This cross-checking process occurs in numerous areas. It is done: 1) among the messages received by different channels (senses), 2) among the data received in different occasions, and 3) among different moods of perception. For instance, if you see a three dimensional holographic picture first time in your life, you may think that it really has three dimensions. However, by touching it you cross-check the visual data with the tactile data. You may think that light is a homogeneous being, until you notice the result of the refraction. More accurate hypotheses or more harmonious hypotheses? Indeed, scientific research is a continuous process, leading us to a more accurate hypotheses at each step. It is really difficult to claim that the conclusions that we arrive at are not other hypotheses. Thus, reaching the absolute knowledge looks like finding the number "pi". Scientists can be considered the ones who discover more digits than the average people; they can never prove that they come to the ultimate truth. However, this is a moderately optimistic approach. We can claim that our scientific findings are no more than succeeding mirages. The notion of "more accurate hypotheses" can be refuted by questioning the virginity of the "hard disk" of a new-born baby. How can we claim that a baby's brain is totally empty? In fact, a new-born baby's brain is not empty. It is formatted. It comes with an inherent master program which evaluates, filters and interprets the received data. We call this format or master program as "logic" or "common sense." Therefore, there is a very serious question regarding the absoluteness or the universal validity of our "logic". How can we claim that the human's logic is perfect? The answer to this question may suggest that our scientific findings are "rationally and empirically coherent hypotheses" instead of "more accurate hypotheses". It is ironic that this fundamental skepticism is raised by our suspect logic itself! Thus, we can even ask a counter-question: how can we rely on auto-criticism of our inherent logic? Helpless gigantic Blank Brain Hence, while conducting science, a scientist cannot be purely objective. In order to provide objectivity, a scientist must carry the brain of a new-born baby. Let's assume an intelligent computer with blank memory! We name it Blank Brain. Can Blank Brain be a moderator in finding ideally objective truth? No. Because, each experiment will provide some ideas, or hypotheses. Blank Brain has to start creating hypotheses in order to conduct next experiments. Since, a single experiment (which will be randomly selected) cannot provide the absolute truth, it is inevitable to initiate hypotheses after the first experiment. Furthermore, the prospective infinite number of experiments and their infinite times infinite number of combinations and analysis will overwhelm even earth-size Blank Brains. A silly utopia Evidently, we need hypotheses to reach a better explanation. "Scientific research without hypotheses" is a silly utopia: It means, either not learning anything from experiments, or finding the ultimate truth about everything after the first experiment. Newton, while conducting his experiment on light and colors was an adult. That is, he had many previous intentional or unintentional observations and experiences which created a lot of background informations and atmospherics in his mind. Additionally, he was a scientist. That means he conducted experiments with which he created or modified many hypotheses. Newton's hypotheses about the composition of light led him to a certain experiment. Furthermore, his hypotheses guided him in evaluating his experiments. If a scientist can treat his/her hypotheses like strangers, he/she has more chance to have more objective experiments. However, some scientists fall in love with their hypotheses. This love may blind them to alternative phenomena and explanations. Additional to individual passion, politics, social pressure, the desire to be famous, or religion can cause bias in scientific research. For instance, feminist movement in last decades led many scientists to distort statistics and data intentionally or unintentionally, in order to prove that men and women are equal in every field. The recent active campaign conducted by gays and lesbians is creating new hypotheses (of obvious and sneaky kind) for justifying homosexual relations. The mind of a scientist, as a human, cannot
get rid of all hypotheses. Even if it is possible, conducting infinite
number of experiments and analyzing them is not possible without the help
of hypotheses. Thus, the only choice for a scientist is:
1. Diagnose all kind of hypotheses in your mind. Be extremely alert against the stealthy ones. |