Who is studying the scientists studying natural events (those both human and non-human) as they attempt to expand the boundaries of scientific knowledge?
If the weight of evidence supporting the principle, however, is so convincing that its findings cannot be disputed, and they have stood the test of time in light of repeated experimentation by other scientists, the explanation for the phenomenon then may achieve the status of "theory," or of "law." Such a status allows the explanation to be accepted as a general frame of reference for all further inquiry into any situation involving that same phenomenon or set of phenomena. Newton's First Law of Gravity is one such example of a hypothesis now writ large as Law. The combination of multiple laws may enable the scientist to develop larger models as pertain to the prediction of behavior within ever larger systems involving more and more complex phenomena. In physicist John Barrow's words, "the goal of science is to make sense of the diversity of Nature...[through] the transformation of lists of observational data into abbreviated form by the recognition of patterns," all with the goal in mind of "algorithmic compression."[1]
Thus, for instance, we have the General Theory of Relativity predicting behavior about the large-scale structure of the universe, and Quantum Mechanics Theory offering predictions about phenomena on extremely small scales at the sub-atomic level. Science thus involves the analysis and computation of data in the interest of attaining an ever more broad understanding of the phenomena of the natural world. From this data, theories and models then can be derived. As a model itself, the scientific method can be outlined as seen in the diagram A.
Diagram A illustrates the general stages of the scientific method. The process toward scientific knowledge is one that is recursive, rather than linear.
Inherent to all scientific methodology on a mechanical level is the interest in how one event/variable/phenomenon is a "function" of, or is "caused" by, another event/variable/phenomenon. Moreover, the cause and effect relationship between variables must be measurable and limitable to a specific point/context both temporally and spatially in order for relationships to be clear and predictable. Scientific models, above all else, wish to offer accurate predictions about what will happen for a given scenario. Let's take an example by returning to Newton.
Newton derived his First Law of Gravity by examining events about him (the falling of an apple), followed by the formulation of the idea of "gravity" to explain the phenomenon of physical objects falling to the ground. In other words, the falling object (apple) is a function of gravity as is present on the Earth at any given moment or place. This, he reasoned, must also explain why the moon orbits the Earth, and he generalized his ideas into a larger model in explanation of the behavior of the heavens. This law among others thus served to unify his ideas in his Principia (1687), arguably one of the most important scientific works ever published.
Thus, as this example demonstrates, scientific analysis into natural behavior may be represented by the following formula: E=f(C), where "E" represents a given event, "C" is the cause of it, and "f" represents their relationship, namely that "E" is a function of "C." In a nutshell, this is one the first major principles of all scientific inquiry.
Diagram B This formula stands behind all scientific knowledge wherein a given Event (E) is identified to be a function (f) of some Cause (C).
This brief definition of scientific method in mind, both its overall procedure, as well as its mechanics, let us now ask what might prove to be a very important question. Have there been any important variables or phenomena left out? That is, in the attempt to systematically measure and interpret the phenomena of the world, has something been overlooked?
It is a given that scientists study the phenomena of the natural world, which in some cases even includes the study of our own species. But lest we forget that mankind is a complex "phenomenon" in its own right, we need also to ask questions on several different levels at the same time. For instance, should not a true anthropology seek to understand human culture in all its many manifestations, including science itself.
This leads us, then, to another very important question: Who is studying the scientists studying natural events-those both human and non-human-as they attempt to expand the boundaries of scientific knowledge? No other species, of course, pursues such radical behavior, but can we simply disregard such questioning as an extraneous variable?[2]
Again, this is another reason why SfACST was founded: to explore human thought in all its complexity (both reflexive and otherwise) and to challenge and to question hidden assumptions in the interest of furthering our awareness of ourselves, individually and collectively, as we attempt to make sense of the world in which we live.
HPM