I'm a big fan of the scientific method and try to apply this methodology as much as possible in my life. For those of not entirely familiar with this approach, here is a brief description from Wikipedia:
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning,[1] the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
The approach can be summarized in these seven steps:
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
7. Publish results
This morning, I was thinking that there's no reason you couldn't apply this same approach to exploring questions of faith. The real difference is that prayer and personal revelation would serve as the experiment and experimental data - thus limiting the generalization of the results to others and the ability for others to indepently reproduce and verify the results. But, in the case of faith, all that matters (in my opinion) is personal belief in the results. The other thing that's important to keep in mind is that the experiment only worked "in your hands" and that similar results should not necessarily be expected in others' hands (i.e., if someone else were to follow the same procedure and prayer, they may not receive the same personal revelation or may even receive contradictory results). Therefore, it is important to limit the intepretation of the results to one's own (personal) faith and not feel threatened if others have faith in different beliefs. Otherwise, the seven steps above can be applied iteratively to arrive at one's own world view and belief system.
Note: the obvious flaw in this logic arises if you believe that everyone should have the exact same world view and belief system but I don't personally believe that.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
What do you believe is truth?
It's worth you reading through this page to put your process (and what you're looking for) in context:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
I'm guessing you fall somewhere in the correspondence theory / pragmatic theory camp. It's definitely worth the time to read through the notable philosophers' perspectives on truth (towards the middle of the article). I'm guessing you would identify with Fromm the most. Read Kant's as well as it tempers that perspective a bit (when he talks about the circular nature of correspondence theory). And then obviously the other philosophers' perspectives are all quite fascinating. I think you may like Gandhi's as well.
Post a Comment