Introduction
Since the most remote antiquity, man has wondered about reality, both to solve his most immediate problems and satisfy his needs, and to know what the things that surround him are.
science-and-the-scientific-methodThis need to know arises from man's astonishment at the processes of the phenomena that are manifested in the Universe: eclipses, the movements of the stars, the succession of the seasons and many other phenomena they were strange, admired and also frightened, and Thus, in this way, factors arise that promote the search for the why, the what (the four Aristotelian causes: material, formal, final cause) of natural phenomena.
It is difficult to determine the level of knowledge reached by primitive peoples prior to the third millennium BC. What can be said is that in Egypt and Mesopotamia the first inquirers of the things that surround man arose. There are numerous written testimonies of the recognitions achieved by these peoples around the year 2000 BC. In both regions there were already at that time cities whose meeting center was the temple, with its priests and astrologers; they also had surveyors, architects, and irrigation engineers.
What is science?
The Greeks divided the study of reality, which they called philosophy, into different areas: first or metaphysical philosophy, which studies the being of things; astronomy, which deals with the stars and their movements; physics, whose object is the study of nature; biology, which studies living things; ethics, which points the way to good and happiness; politics, which indicates how the city should be organized and theology or study of God. For the Greeks, science was a safe, rational, explanatory and demonstrative knowledge, which pointed out the causes of the phenomenon studied.
Plato (427-347 BC) already shows us in his works Socrates (470399 BC) his teacher, who affirmed the deficient validity of the simple opinion (Doxa) as the basis of knowledge. His dialogue Theethetus is dedicated to seeking the conditions of scientific knowledge, capable of overcoming the world of appearances (physical or sensible world).
For example, when a rod is introduced into a pond, it gives the impression of this broken, distorted appearance of reality due to the phenomenon of the refraction of light.
Aristotle (384-322 BC) systematically delves into the requirements of human knowledge to arrive at the reality of things. He deals with this in the Analytical Seconds and especially in Book IV of his Metaphysics. He is aware that scientific knowledge is different from the knowledge that is commonly held by opinion. Opinion (Doxa) is an insecure judgment, based on superfluous knowledge of things based on their appearances. He does not know how to give reasons (valid and demonstrable arguments, supported by empirical data and intellectual or theoretical data) for what he affirms and judges with great risk of being wrong. On the other hand, science is safer, since it gives an explanation of what it affirms and refers to the causes of things.
Until the beginning of the Modern Age, based on appearances, it was believed that there were only four elements: earth, water, air and fire. Lavoisier (1743-1794), among others, began to scientifically investigate the elements that constitute matter and that today we know there are more than one hundred.
Modern Science
For centuries, the Greek concept of science prevailed. In the 16th century, a series of notable thinkers appeared, with a different concept of science. The main author of this new way of thinking is the Florentine Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). The new science that he tries to found does not consist in philosophically explaining reality by going to its ultimate causes, but in describing phenomena and explaining reality by its most immediate agents.
For example, ancient astronomers, including Ptolemy, followed Aristotle in the belief that the stars were intelligent beings, whose substance was eternal, unalterable and incorruptible, since they considered them as intermediaries between the corruptible of the physical world and the eternal of God. While Galileo better checked the sun and its sunspots, the moon with its mountains and the first planets with their natural satellites, realizing that they are composed of the same matter as the earth.
And that is how Galileo had to break with the weight of tradition that came from the Greeks; his talent prevailed and demonstrated the foundation and solidity of his intent. However, he could not object to Aristotle's idea that scientific knowledge must be safe, true, and demonstrative; nor could it reduce Science to the debatable (Doxa) and debatable. The Florentine genius achieved a secure and firm knowledge, without resorting to philosophical concepts, by combining the science of nature with mathematics.
Thus was born the physical-mathematical science guided by the Galilean method, and as we know it, based on the measurement (quantitative characteristics: measure, weight, duration, etc.) of the phenomena and their representation through mathematical formulas or models.
And this is how this new scientific thinking has spread throughout the world. In its three centuries of existence, this new science has made marvelous advances both in the knowledge of reality and in its mastery and transformation. Its prestige is so sure that other disciplines, such as psychology, biology and sociology, sometimes try to follow the model of the natural sciences (physics-mathematics).
How has Science succeeded in its attempt?
The great advances in physico-mathematical are due, on the one hand, to men of great talent (who take advantage of and develop their superior human faculties: language, reason, thought (inductive, deductive and analogical) and problem solving) who have devoted themselves to scientific research, such as Kepler (1571-1630), Descartes (1596-1650) and his method of Cartesian doubt or Cartesian method, and Isaac Newton (1642-1727).
Therefore the great successes, fruits and advances in pure and applied science, is without a doubt, by a cognitive instrument called the Scientific Method which it uses, and whose four steps are the following:
- The Observations that the scientist makes on the phenomenon or sector of reality that he is going to study; It measures and quantifies it, catalogs and analyzes them. Experimentation, which consists of violating nature so that it responds in some way to the questions that the researcher poses (manipulation and control of variables or conditions). The fact that there are laboratories in schools means that we follow the line marked by the Galilean Method or Galileo method. Then, the scientist formulates or designs a premilitary hypothesis that can explain the phenomenon in question, the reasons for which he ignores. But the hypothesis is not enough; The scientific method requires a fourth step aimed at verifying it (criteria of reliability and veracity). It is now a question of Verifying (demonstrating),to subject the preliminary hypothesis formulated to a series of empirical and intellectual tests. If it resists the tests to which it is subjected, then a scientific advance has been achieved, turning the hypothesis into a thesis that at any moment could be a low or high level law.
And this is how the scientist has to rely, in addition, on a series of cognitive instruments. Since you need the activity of your mind, which is abstraction and imagination, equally necessary are induction, deduction and analogy that are elements of reasoning or reason.
Therefore it can be said that human knowledge or thought is in a continuous dialectical process of capturing its own reality and that of the sensible world. And this is how there are different ways of knowing the human being and the sensible world (material objects) from different points of view or approaches (formal objects) using different ways of knowing (methods: general, specific and particular; see annexes).
Hume begins by stating that man has two different types of perceptions, which are impressions and ideas. By impressions he means the immediate perception of external reality. By ideas he means the memory of such an impression.
For example. If an individual is burned on a hot stove, he receives an immediate impression or creates an image of the event in his mind. Later you can think about that time it got burned. This is what Hume calls Idea. The difference is that the Impression is stronger and more alive than the memory of the reflection on the memory. It can be said that the sensation is only the original, and that the Idea or the memory of the sensation is only a pale copy. Because the impression is the direct cause of the Idea that is hidden in consciousness.
- Objective qualities or primary qualities of the senses according to John Locke, refers to the Extension of things; its weight, shape, movement, number. As for these quantitative qualities, we can be sure that the senses reproduce the true qualities of things.Subjective qualities or secondary qualities of the senses according to John Locke, are qualitative qualities such as color, taste or sound, although they do not always reflect the true qualities that are inherent in things themselves, but only reflect the influence of external reality on our senses.
Where do we get our ideas and concepts from?
Is the world really as we perceive it?
Locke used to say that little by little we are gathering and intertwining the sensations, forming concepts during our experiences. But all the material of our knowledge (content of consciousness) about the sensible world enters after all through the sense organs. Therefore, knowledge that cannot be derived from simple sensations is false knowledge and must be rejected.
There is nothing in human intelligence that has not passed through the senses before. The mind can be considered as an empty slate (tabula rasa), at the moment of birth.
Therefore, it is understood that experience (external or internal) as the exclusive source of our sensitive knowledge. From this comes the golden rule of empiricism: only that knowledge that is properly supported by a sensible experience is valid.
What are the sources for the acquisition of knowledge?
In summary, it can be said that empiricism and rationalism are philosophical approaches, which are valid in the acquisition of knowledge, and we can also consider them to describe, understand and analyze natural, social and human phenomena, since From sensitive data, representations or ideas are obtained. And these representations or ideas allow us to build scientific concepts or abstractions to identify the object of study of a certain problem of everyday life.
1.5.- Scientific thinking
What is science?
Science as a general and logistic concept is the methodical investigation of natural laws by determining and systematizing the causes of a certain phenomenon or fact (see glossary of terms).
For Aristotle, science or episteme consists, not so much in a series of objective knowledge, but in an intellectual virtue that is defined as a demonstrative habit, then we can conclude that this aptitude of the scientist has, as a training instrument, precisely the syllogism, operation that rigorously demonstrates the proposed theses. And, finally, with this it is concluded that Logic is the proper instrument of the scientist and the philosopher.
The word "science" comes from the Latin scientia, which in a strict sense means "to know." However, the term knowledge should be given a broader meaning and, thus, science would be the "set of what is known by having learned it through continuous mental activity or reasoning (inductive, deductive or analogical)… to have science you have to cover at least an entire knowledge system; To have knowledge, it is enough to have more knowledge about one or more systems. In a word, knowledge is the science of man who has sought the opportunity to observe, analyze, interpret, understand the elements that are part of the processes that identify or characterize a phenomenon or fact in the sensible world.
Science (in Latin scientia, from scire, 'to know'), a term that in its broadest sense is used to refer to systematized knowledge in any field, but which is usually applied above all to the organization of objectively verifiable sensory experience. The search for knowledge in this context is known as 'pure science', to distinguish it from 'applied science' - the search for practical uses of scientific knowledge - and from technology, through which applications are carried out. (For more information, see the individual articles on most of the sciences mentioned throughout this article.)
Science can also be defined, from a totalized point of view, as a cumulative, methodical and provisional system of behavioral knowledge, the product of scientific research and concerning a certain area of objects and phenomena.
It must be recognized that science is a developing knowledge system, which is obtained through the corresponding cognitive methods and is reflected in exact concepts, whose veracity is verified and demonstrated through social practice. In addition, it can be said that it is a complex social phenomenon, which includes many facets and is related to numerous other phenomena of social life. The emergence of science and its development constitutes an integral part of the universal history of mankind. If science cannot arise or develop outside of society, neither can society, in a higher phase of its development, exist without science. The historical meaning of the appearance and development of science consists in satisfying the needs of the production of material goods,the political-social practice, the economic structure of the society, the reigning character of the conception of the world, the different forms of social conscience, the level of development of the production, the technique, the spiritual culture, the instruction and also the logic internal scientific knowledge itself.
The success of scientific creation depends not only on the talent, wit and imagination of the scientist, but also on the necessary instruments or apparatus. It is precisely the development of technology that has provided science with very powerful means of experimentation and logical research, such as the synchrocyclotron, spacecraft, and logic machines. Therefore, it can be said that social practice is the sphere of application of knowledge, and in this sense constitutes the objective of knowledge. It is important to recognize that Practice serves as a criterion for the veracity of the results of scientific knowledge. In fact, in any sphere of science, practical orientation represents the fundamental and determining stimulus of scientific inquiry.
It is important to emphasize that scientific knowledge pursues maximum accuracy, excluding everything individual, everything that the scientist has been able to contribute on his own: science is a social form, of a general nature, of the development of knowledge. The whole history of science confirms a fact that any subjectivism has always been eliminated or at least avoided as far as possible, in a more implacable way, from the path of scientific knowledge, preserving only the supra-individuality, the objective. The artistic works are one of a kind, while the results of scientific investigations are general. Science is a product of "general historical development in its abstract summary." On the other hand, art admits invention, the introduction by the artist himself of something that does not exist in that precise way,it did not exist and probably will not exist in the reality of the sensible or physical world.
But artistic fiction is only admissible in regard to the singular way of expressing the general, and not in regard to its content: artistic truth does not admit the least arbitrariness and subjectivism. If the artist, by reflecting the general, does not maintain the organic unity with the specific (typical) and singular, the result will not be an artistic work, but a simple schematism and naked sociology. If, on the contrary, he reduces everything in his work to the singular, blindly copying the phenomena he observes and separating the singular from the general and the specific, he will obtain a naturalistic copy, instead of an artistic work. In science, on the contrary, the fundamental thing consists in eliminating everything singular and individual, everything that cannot be repeated, and preserving the general in the form of concepts and categories. In the world,the form of the general is the law. Therefore, scientific knowledge is the knowledge of the laws that represent phenomena or facts and their processes within the sensible or physical world.
1.6.- Origins of science
Efforts to systematize knowledge date back to prehistoric times, as evidenced by drawings that Paleolithic peoples painted on cave walls, numerical data engraved on bone or stone, or objects made by Neolithic civilizations. The oldest written testimonies of proto-scientific investigations come from Mesopotamian cultures, and correspond to lists of astronomical observations, chemical substances or symptoms of diseases - in addition to numerous mathematical tables - inscribed in cuneiform characters on clay tablets. Other tablets dating from around 2000 BC show that the Babylonians knew the Pythagorean theorem,they solved quadratic equations and had developed a sexagesimal system of measurements (based on the number 60) from which modern units for times and angles are derived.
Papyri from a chronological period close to that of Mesopotamian cultures have been discovered in the Nile Valley that contain information on the treatment of wounds and diseases, the distribution of bread and beer, and how to find the volume of a part of a pyramid. Some of the current units of longitude come from the Egyptian system of measurements and the calendar we use is the indirect result of pre-Hellenic astronomical observations.
The biggest drive science generates is the desire for systematic explanations controllable by empirical evidence. The distinctive purpose of science is the discovery and formulation in general terms of the conditions under which events of various kinds occur, and the generalized propositions of such determining conditions which serve as explanations of the corresponding events.
Science is one of the few realities that can be passed down to future generations. The men of each historical period assimilated the scientific results of previous generations, developing and expanding some new aspects. Of the double element of the time, the immutable and the fixed, the not yet verified and the definitively established, only the latter is cumulative and progressive.
Those elements that constitute a good part of science and that are the ephemeral and transitory part, such as certain hypotheses and theories, are lost in time and retain, at best, a certain historical interest.
Each age elaborates its theories according to the level of evolution in which it is, replacing the old ones that come to be considered as outdated and consequently anachronistic.
What allowed science to reach the current level was a nucleus of practical techniques (scientific method), the empirical facts and the laws that form the element of continuity, and that has been perfected and expanded throughout history. with the evolution of man.
The science in the models in which it is represented today is relatively recent. Only in the modern age of history did it acquire the scientific character it shows today. But already from the beginning of humanity, the first rudimentary traces are found as vestiges of knowledge, of technique, and that later would become science.
The scientific revolution, properly so called, is recorded in the 16th and 17th centuries with Copernicus, Bacon and his experimental method, Galileo Galilei, Descartes, and others. So it did not arise by chance. Every occasional and empirical discovery of techniques and knowledge regarding the universe, nature, and men, from the ancient Greeks, Egyptians and Babylonians, the contribution to the Greek creative spirit synthesized and expanded by Aristotle, the inventions made at the time of the conquest, prepare the emergence of the scientific method and the spirit of objectivity that will characterize science from the sixteenth century, before indefinitely and now rigorously.
Years later, already in the 18th century, the experimental method was perfected and applied to new areas of knowledge. The study of chemistry and biology is developed, a more objective knowledge of the structure and functions of living organisms arises. In the following century there is a general change in intellectual and industrial activities. New data are emerging regarding evolution, the atom, light, electricity, magnetism, and nuclear energy. Already in the 20th century, science with objective and exact methods develops research on all fronts of the physical and human world, obtaining a surprising degree of precision, not only in the field of space navigation, communications, cybernetics and transplants, but also in the most diverse sectors of social reality.
1.7.-. Empiricism and modern science
Much is what modern science owes to Empiricism in what it contains exclusively to observation and experimentation. The constant progress of such inquiries, their extension to living beings, the achievements of evolutionary theory, the development of biochemistry, cybernetics, artificial intelligence, robotics, mechatronics have been constantly gaining ground to supernaturalism and the "vital forces" of nature as conceived by science.
At present, it is no longer believed, in the effective way and with the amplitude of before, in the interference of a supernatural (invisible) world in the world in which we inhabit. If the radio or car has a breakdown, if a child has a fever or shows other symptoms of illness, if an insect infestation destroys crops, we no longer attribute such events or events to intangible or spiritual causes. We even attribute mental illness, childhood delinquency, anxious neurosis, sexual abnormality, or strained marital relationships to psychological causes. We increasingly believe that finding out the cause of many things or events is the exclusive responsibility of SCIENCE. Yet mysticism continues to mislead many people, mysticism which is the crooked method of their thinking;so it is not necessary to give up on the critical attitude, rather it is necessary to intensify it more and more. But, after all, we can assure you that supernaturalism is defeated.
Science in its evolution, undoubtedly has as its driving force, research methods and instruments (scientific method) that are increased and perfected, coupled with the scientific, insightful, rigorous and objective spirit.
1.9.-. SCIENCE VALIDATION CRITERIA
"Full clarity is the measure of all truth"
Hursserl
When a thing is self-evident, there is no greater difficulty; but, ordinarily, most things are not self-evident and need proof. Science is worth as much as it is capable of proving, but science cannot prove everything, since they depend on other, previous, unprovable and self-evident knowledge.
Martínez (1989) comments that in the last century, the empirical base of the evidence was emphasized; In this century, preferably in the last decades, epistemology has emphasized more the importance of rational evidence.
Today, we must be very alert when accepting something as more or less "obvious", we have to make a systematic criticism to reduce the margin of error of our knowledge. Martínez proposes six criteria for the validation of science:
- We cannot start thinking from scratch, since others have thought before me, and I am led by their thinking. There may be several hypotheses, theories or coherent bodies of beliefs that, even when they are very different from each other, give sufficient reason for all the known facts in a given field of a discipline. It is possible to overcome the concepts of "objectivity" and "subjectivity "With a broader and more rational one, which is" approach "since it represents a mental perspective, an approach, or an ideological approach, a point of view from a personal situation, which does not suggest either the universality of objectivity or the personal biases of subjectivity; only one's own appreciation. The concept of approach leads us to another extremely rich one, that of complementarity.If each approach offers us an aspect of reality and an interpretation of it from that point of view, various approaches, and the dialogue between their representatives, will give us a much greater wealth of knowledge. It is necessary to revalue intuition in our academic circles and more specifically the so-called tacit knowledge. Intuition is found both at the beginning and at the end of all cognitive processes and all scientific knowledge. At the beginning in the postulation of promising hypotheses and conjectures and at the end in the "verification" of each of the results and conclusions. All demonstration, all reasoning and all proof are nothing but a chain of minor intuitions, of "intellectual visions" that indicate that things are a certain way. And although this process is partly conscious,It never is fully. Most classical research designs use analytical logic (derived from Aristotelian principles, coupled with a deterministic view derived from English empiricists such as D. Hume and J. Mill). It has been shown more and more that this logic is incapable of understanding the complex problems of the human sciences, since human systems do not work with the sequence of this ordinary logic or with the chance of a single sense, but are systems with reciprocal interaction and influenced circular; In other words, the way must be given to a new structural, systematic and dialectical logic. In a system, according to L. Von Bertalanffy (1981), there is a set of interrelated units in such a way that the behavior of each part depends on the state of all the others,because all are in a structure that interconnects them. In human beings there are structures of a very high level of complexity, which are constituted by systems of systems whose understanding defies the acuity of the most privileged minds. The truth has only a provisional character. Our current knowledge cannot be verified; In the strict sense, the most we can do is confirm them with conclusive tests or contrasts that reaffirm us in our current ideas, but that will not last longer than the accepted approach or paradigm lasts. The truth has a historical meaning, and it will always be in a continuous process of formation. "The truths of today will constitute the errors of tomorrow…"In human beings there are structures of a very high level of complexity, which are constituted by systems of systems whose understanding defies the acuity of the most privileged minds. The truth has only a provisional character. Our current knowledge cannot be verified; In the strict sense, the most we can do is confirm them with conclusive tests or contrasts that reaffirm us in our current ideas, but that will not last longer than the accepted approach or paradigm lasts. The truth has a historical meaning, and it will always be in a continuous process of formation. "The truths of today will constitute the errors of tomorrow…"In human beings there are structures of a very high level of complexity, which are constituted by systems of systems whose understanding defies the acuity of the most privileged minds. The truth has only a provisional character. Our current knowledge cannot be verified; In the strict sense, the most we can do is confirm them with conclusive tests or contrasts that reaffirm us in our current ideas, but that will not last longer than the accepted approach or paradigm lasts. The truth has a historical meaning, and it will always be in a continuous process of formation. "The truths of today will constitute the errors of tomorrow…"Our current knowledge cannot be verified; In the strict sense, the most we can do is confirm them with conclusive tests or contrasts that reaffirm us in our current ideas, but that will not last longer than the accepted approach or paradigm lasts. The truth has a historical meaning, and it will always be in a continuous process of formation. "The truths of today will constitute the errors of tomorrow…"Our current knowledge cannot be verified; In the strict sense, the most we can do is confirm them with conclusive tests or contrasts that reaffirm us in our current ideas, but that will not last longer than the accepted approach or paradigm lasts. The truth has a historical meaning, and it will always be in a continuous process of formation. "The truths of today will constitute the errors of tomorrow…"
Therefore, it is necessary to consider that the truth will always be subjective, since what at a certain time seems to be a truth, in the future may complement or cease to be a theory or a valid cognitive instrument, since phenomena are constantly in motion. infinitesimal changes.
1.10.- ACHIEVEMENTS AND LIMITS OF PURE AND APPLIED SCIENCE
What has pure and applied science achieved during the development of humanity?
In the first place, a greater approach to sensible reality, through a deep, well-founded and rigorous study of phenomena, discovering the universal laws that govern the processes of phenomena. For example, eclipses were formerly considered to be bad omens, whereas today how they occur is known and can be predicted fairly accurately.
Second, they have allowed a more extensive knowledge of reality. We now know a lot about areas that were not even suspected centuries ago. Such as, for example, quantum chemistry or Einstein's theory of relativity, and Quantum Physics.
Finally, science has modified our way of thinking and living, through the development of technology (industrial revolution, we go from crafts to manufacturing. Craftsman). Such is the case of the manufacture of new drugs, without which the probability of death of a patient was very high; the development of artificial organs and as well as many other things that have allowed the prolongation of man's life. Thus we have that in prehistoric times the average life span was between 20 and 30 years; At the end of the 19th century the life expectancy was 50 years and today it is approximately 70 years, all thanks to pure and applied science.
However, pure and applied science has its limits, which are of two kinds.
- There are limits to the development that a certain science can have and that do not allow it, for now, to know something of the reality it studies. But time and research will see to it that these limits recede and man becomes better acquainted with sensible reality. For example, Augusto Comte affirmed that it was idle to try to know the chemical composition of the stars; However, at present it is possible to obtain it with precision thanks to spectroscopic analysis. There are also methodological limits, which arise from the partial and relative way of considering sensible reality, which science can never overcome. They are beyond his competence, since the scientific method he uses does not allow him to achieve certain aspects. For example, science escapes knowledge about meta-empirical realities,like conscience and freedom. They are beyond its classical research methods, procedures and techniques, and must be studied with a type of research different from the classical system (experimental sciences such as: physics, chemistry, biology, etc.), such as historical, philosophical, religious research and others.
This allows us to be aware that science is valid, but it is not the last mode of knowledge available to man. Therefore, we must not make the mistake of absolutizing it, since in sensible reality and in man there are fields that transcend the traditional or classical scientific method (method: Aristotelian, Galilean, Baconian and Cartesian). The passion to live; responsibility and guilt; love and dedication. All the enormous variety of man's internal values, such as goodness, justice, love, and many other domains such as artistic creation, cannot be treated from a purely scientific or traditional point of view, but on the contrary must be seen as epistemic or epistemological approaches, since they can be studied as systems,and thus know and understand the relationship that exists between its elements and their connections.
Of course, the soul does not exist in its idealistic and religious conception. But there are psychic processes, such as consciousness, sensation, perception, conception, thought, emotions, and will.
For Aristotle also described in his treatise, to a greater degree, real psychic phenomena, and not the abstract soul, of which Christianity later began to speak, greatly distorting Aristotle's concepts.
Idealists have always tried and continue to interpret the psyches as a manifestation of a certain primary spiritual principle, independent of matter. Dialectical materialism affirms that the psyche is secondary, since it owes its origin to matter; and that being, matter and nature are primary.
The history of psychology is the history of the struggle of materialism against idealism, and of its victory over it. Whatever the world concepts may be in the details, ultimately they can all be divided into two groups. If a person believes that the surrounding world exists only in his consciousness, he is idealistic. If you believe that the sensible world, nature and being exist outside and independently of your consciousness, you are materialistic. In a word, for the materialist, the primary thing is being; for the idealist, consciousness.
Many mistakes have been made in understanding psychic phenomena. Thus, Baruch Espinosa (1632-1677), a Dutch philosopher, atheist, and materialist, considered thought as an eternal attribute of matter. Since the middle of the last century, the psychophysical parallelism has acquired wide diffusion, according to which psychic and physiological phenomena develop independently, parallel to each other. From the beginning of our century, in American psychology behaviorism (English behavior, conduct; 1925) spread; This reactionary tendency denies man's consciousness and conscious activity.
1.11.- Members of intellectual capacity
Intellectual capacity is made up of:
1. Knowledge - information accumulated from previous experiences may be available when an individual needs to solve a problem. It is possible to speak of knowledge in terms of:
a) Quantity: the number of pieces of information related to a problem, and
b) Quality: the usefulness of knowledge to solve problems by allowing new problems to be considered as special cases of what is already known.
2. Cognitive abilities- types of operation that act on the information that is had on previous experiences. For pedagogical purposes we can group them into:
a) Thinking skills: a number of complex skills that are applied alone or together, and
b) Communication skills: related to the organization and presentation of information intended to inform and understand another individual, or to systematize the information for one's own use.
John Locke, uses the Introspective Method as two different ways, to describe the experiences in the human being.
- The External experience comes from SENSATION and PERCEPTION (the world of the senses according to Plato) which is the modification that the soul experiences when the senses directly excite it (external factors, stimuli). Internal experience is the path of reflection which is the soul's self-perception of its own happening (the world of ideas according to Plato).
Locke in the face of the confusion and disorientation caused by the erroneous methods of thought prevailing in his time, tried, in his Essay on Human Understanding, to establish the limits of reasoning. Locke argues that truth must be limited to what can be inferred or logically constructed through sensory experience; that the infallible proof of love for the truth lies in “not taking into consideration any proposition with greater security than that which can facilitate the proof on which it is built”, so that the degree of settlement that we give to a certain point In view, rest on the fundamentals of probability that exist in your favor.
And since metaphysical speculations and theological dogmas do not have such a basis, such speculations and dogmas must not be taken into consideration. If such hypotheses are accepted as real truths, then we find ourselves "living immersed in a sleeping species" in "a state of enlightened ignorance."
During the 17th century, several philosophers belonging to the philosophical current of Empiricism (John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume, among others) adopted the point of view that we have absolutely no content in consciousness before acquiring our experiences through the senses. Since an empiricist wants to derive all knowledge about the world from what our senses (experiences) tell us.
John Locke (1632-1704) tries to clarify two questions. In the first place, he asks where the human being receives his ideas and concepts. Secondly, if we can trust what our senses do not count. Locke is convinced that all we have of thoughts and concepts are only reflections of what we have seen and heard. Before capturing with our senses, our consciousness is like a tabula rasa, or blank blackboard.
There is a line that goes from Socrates and Plato and passes through Saint Augustine before reaching Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza,
Leibniz. During the seventeenth century all these philosophers were RATIONALISTS. They believed that REASON is the only safe source of knowledge. Yes, a RATIONALIST believes in REASON as a source of knowledge. He believes that the human being is born with certain ideas, which therefore exist in the consciousness of men before any experience.
Plato says that we cannot know anything for sure about something that is constantly changing. About what belongs to the world of the senses, that is, what we can feel and touch, we can only have unsafe ideas or hypotheses. We can only have certain knowledge of what we see with reason. The visual faculty itself can vary from one person to another. However, we can trust what reason tells us, because the reason is the same for all people; the reason is the opposite of opinions and opinions. We could say that reason is eternal and universal precisely because it only pronounces itself on eternal and universal matters. We can only have vague ideas about what we feel, but we can get certain knowledge about what we recognize with reason.
What is reasoning?
Reasoning is a logical operation through which, based on one or more judgments, the validity, possibility or falsity of a different judgment is derived. In general, the judgments on which reasoning is based express knowledge already acquired or, at least, hypothesized.
When the operation is rigorously carried out and the derived judgment follows logically from the antecedent judgments, the reasoning is called inference. The judgments that serve as a starting point are called premises and play the role of being the conditions of inference. The result that is obtained, that is, the judgment inferred as a consequence, is called a conclusion.
The inference allows to extract from the already established knowledge, other knowledge that is implicit in the premises or that is possible according to them. When the conclusion reaches a less general knowledge than that expressed in the premises, a deductive inference will have been made. When the conclusion constitutes a synthesis of the premises and, consequently, a more general knowledge, an inductive inference will have been practiced. And, when the conclusion has the same degree of generality or particularity as the premises, then a transductive inference will have been executed. The execution of the inferences is carried out according to certain rules that have been elucidated in experience and formulated in a strict way by logic.
In any case, what is obtained as the conclusion of an inference is simply a judgment of possibility, or what is the same, a hypothesis.
Download the original file
