Name of the student: Mziwamadoda Pongolo
Student Number: 200503324
Course: Development studies
Course Code: Dev 511
Assignment Question: What are major non scientific sources of knowledge? Why science is a superior of knowledge? Explain.
Lecturer: Professor Aminur Rahim
Due Date: March 2012
Introduction
There are four major sources of non scientific knowledge and these are based on intuition, common sense, authority, and tradition. These four are based on personal judgments, opinions, and mystification of reality. There is however no single definition of knowledge at present nor any prospect of one and there remains numerous theories as to what knowledge is. Below is a detailed discussion of the major non scientific sources of knowledge.
Intuition
According to Shepard (2002), intuition is quick and ready insight that is not based on rational thought. To intuit is to have the feeling of immediately understanding something because of insight from an unknown inner source. For example, the decision against dating a particular person because it feels wrong is a decision based on intuition (Shepard, 2002: 38). Intuition is based on personal judgment, which might take place when one understands something because of insight from an inner source. Therefore intuition is not based on rational thought in that something that is based on rationality and logic is something that is objective and verifiable.
Common sense
According to Shepard (2002), common sense refers to opinions that are widely held because they seem so obviously correct, though in most cases they are often wrong (Shepard 2002: 39). Common sense leads to common error of human inquiry called overgeneralization. Researchers often over generalize if they are carrying out a research and they get under pressure, they ask people at random and if they seem to be getting the same results it becomes obvious that even the people they have not interviewed or asked will give them the same results and ideas based on this type of research are often wrong.
Authority
Authority is someone who is supposed to have special knowledge that other people do not have. A king who is believed to be ruling by divine right is an example of an authority. Reliance on authority is often appropriate because people tend to believe something from someone with authority than made up information. Nevertheless, Williamson (1999) as cited in Shepard (2002) is reflecting the other side of the authority, he says that, “in other instances, however, authority can obscure the truth. Astrologers who advise people to guide their lives by the stars are an example of a misleading authority (B. Williamson, 1999) as cited in (Shepard 2002:39). Inquiry can also be hindered when we depend on the authority of experts speaking outside their realm. Once more this kind of an approach in generating knowledge is very dangerous because it is biased and skewed in nature; therefore it disqualifies it from being considered as a scientific source of knowledge. An example of authority is that it may be more appropriate to accept a doctor’s diagnosis of an illness because sometimes people believe in the expertise of someone who has been trained and has special credentials in a given matter especially in the face of a controversy.
Tradition
Defining tradition one would say, it is a ritual or belief passed down within a society or from this generation to the other, still maintained in the present with origins in the past. Tradition is rigid, it does not change over the years nor can context change it as opposed to what happens to culture. Shepard (2002) sees tradition as a forth major non-scientific source of knowledge; in referring to Sifford(1989) he argues that, “despite the evidence to the contrary, it is traditional to believe that an only child will be self –centered and socially inept. In fact, most Americans still wish to have two or more children to avoid these alleged personality traits (Sifford, 1989) as cited in Shepard (Shepard 2002: 39)”. People believing in tradition are often detained by tradition because tradition in a person enjoys the status of not being subjected to criticism and disparagement; they consider tradition as a flawless concept. As a result of this idea many people fall victim to it in the name of tradition. Another argument would be that of a religion in a traditional belief that a particular family upholds, most chances are that a child raised in that environment would become as such. The paradox here is that, this child did not choose to become a Christian or Muslim or Hindu, his or her family tradition indirectly so chose it for him or her, perhaps depriving the child the opportunity of exploring and deciding for himself what he or she wants to become in his or her life. This kind of an approach cannot be considered as a scientific source of knowledge due to the fact that it lacks objectivity in particular, objectivity has provisions of freedom in its being. The positive look at tradition would be, tradition can be of advantage in that it provides with it a jumping off point for the development of more knowledge because the researchers will not start from scratch by believing what everybody knows and this gives them fertile grounds to start their research. At the same time tradition provides with it errors in human inquiry in that if a researcher comes and tries to change what everybody knows he is labeled a fool for his or her efforts of trying to make people aware. Both tradition and authority are a good combination in that they provide with them a starting point for human inquiry but they can lead one to start at the wrong point and go the wrong route.
In the below paragraphs we shall focus our explanation to what we consider a scientific sources of knowledge. We shall look at objectivity, subjectivity, and verifiability as aspects that make possible for researchers to construct scientific knowledge. Science is referred to as a superior or advanced or of better quality in terms of acquiring knowledge because it is systematic in approach. In constructing a scientific knowledge one has to take seriously the importance of observation, experiment, reason or logic and theory as understood in scientific study. The four models form the foundation of scientific study, but there are three apparatus that are used in science to justify the nobility of scientific study. The objectivity, subjectivity, and verifiability are the most important terms in scientific study, if they are not the heart of it.
Objectivity
When we speak of objectivity we refer to non partisanship, factuality, fairness; an objective study offers a comprehensive range of perceptions in studying something. For example if a researcher wants to know why woman in a particular village do prostitution, he or she must avoid having preconceived ideas about a group of people he or she wishes to study .The researcher needs to declass him or herself when doing research so that to avoid personal errors of human inquiry as mentioned by (Babbie,2007:40) and these are inaccurate observation ,overgeneralization, selective observation ,made up information, illogical reasoning and ego involvement in understanding scientific study. Shepard (2002) argues that, according to the principle of objectivity, scientists are expected to prevent their personal biases from influencing the interpretation of their results. A male, antifeminist biologist investigating aptitudes, for example, is supposed to guard against any unwarranted tendency to conclude that males make better scientists than females (Shepard 2002: 40)’.
Subjectivity
Naturally science cannot be utterly objective, scientific study is conducted by natural beings human in particular and human beings are filled with errors; therefore it is bound to show some elements of biasness in it. According to Shepard, (2002) “but if subjectivity cannot be eliminated, it can be reduced. If researchers are aware of their biases, they can consciously take them into account (Shepard 2002: 40)”. For the researcher to personally recognize and acknowledge his or her biases he or she is helping to make his or her research outcome objective; in a sense you have explicitly stated your weakness to make it easier for those who will be exposed to your report to see the objectivity of your research outcome. Scientists are prone to make mistakes because they are not perfect. Since subjectivity cannot be eliminated it can be reduced, if researchers are aware of their biases they can consciously take them to account. Personal recognition of biases is insufficient; hence public exposure of them is essential. This approach can also make the research work of a researcher to be more balanced and reliable in explaining social reality.
Verifiability
Verifiability means if something is capable of being verified. One has to be certain that the outcome of the research undertaken is confirmable, provable, checkable, sustainable, and empirical. Shepard (2002) as cited in Begley (1997) argues that, ‘verifiability means that a study can be repeated by other scientists. This is possible because scientists report in detail their research methods. Verifiability is important because it exposes scientific work to critical analysis, retesting, and revision by colleagues. If researchers repeating a study produce results at odds with the original study, the original findings will be questioned. Under these circumstances, erroneous theories, findings, and conclusions will not survive (Begley, 1997), as cited in (Shepard 2002: 40)’. Based on is stated above it is now clear that verifiability is one of the most important tools in the process of producing scientific knowledge.
Conclusion
However, non scientific knowledge cannot be written off because there are people that rely on this source if they have to know about something. We take for example poor people, they always speculate on something to a point of believing that is their truth; it is scientific study that should give direction to this chaos by employing scientific tools of constructing knowledge to better those that are exposed to non scientific sources of knowledge
Bibliography
· Jim Shepard. 2002. Sociology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth: Thomson Learning, pp. 38-59.
· Babbie. 2007. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing company, 11th Ed, pp.39-64.
Good idea for readers Thank you very much
ReplyDelete