Philosophy of Science and Applied Developmental Science

The Nature of Science

In the last few centuries, philosophers of science have sought to define exactly what science is and explain what scientists do. The endeavor to understand scientific inquiry, scientific thinking and reasoning, and the function as well as the products of the scientific enterprise has led to a conceptualization of the nature of science. Articulated, the nature of science provides a cultural narrative of the activity that is enabling humankind to understand and explain the phenomenological world. In this light, explanations of natural phenomena have been described as the fruits of scientific activity. The contemporary surge in literature on the subject of science and the scientific enterprise within the broader community, as well as narrower research communities, is in part testimony to the collective interest in this narrative. Pundits argue that an understanding of the nature of science among members of the broader community is necessary to appreciate the capacity as well as limits of scientific knowledge. It follows that communications about the nature of science have been variously used to allay fears and distrust of the scientific community, inform the public of the directions of scientific research, and aid in the decision-making processes associated with increasingly complex science- and technology-based issues (Conant, 1951). Indeed, it has been argued that understanding the nature of science is a critical component of scientific literacy and crucial to an engaged [Page 824]citizenry (Matthews, 1994). However, there are varied, if not contentious, views of the nature of science. Often, these views are shaped by particular orientations to, or association within, distinct fields of science. Nonetheless, a generalized scientific worldview acceptable to most philosophers of science has been described (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990).

Scientific Worldviews

The scientific worldview holds that the world is understandable. If the world is knowable, then there must be sources for knowledge. Two traditional major theoretical sources of knowledge in science are empiricism and rationalism. In empiricism, experience serves as the source of all knowledge. Empirical studies are grounded in observable phenomena. Rationalism, on the other hand, is the doctrine that reason and logic (deductive and inductive) are the source of knowledge. At the fundamental level, rationalism does not require direct experience (observation) of phenomena (empiricism). Aristotle is often cited as the classical example of an empiricist, just as Plato is cited as the classical rationalist. There are, of course, families of philosophies found within the empiricist and rationalist doctrines that cannot be discussed in this limited space. Generally, however, few would argue that scientific methods employ a combination of empiricism and rationalism at some points. The critical emphasis on empiricism constrains the type of questions that science can answer. That is, not all questions are open to scientific inquiry. For example, religious, spiritual, and supernatural questions cannot be empirically scrutinized.

...