MCQs and Answers

“Subduct from any given phenomenon such part as is known by previous induction to be the effect of certain antecedents and the residue of the phenomenon is the effect of the remaining antecedents”.

The significance of this method is that this method is applied in the complex cases. It is applied only in such complex cases where the causal relationships of the contained factors are known excluding one. Only in such cases the causal relationship between the remaining factors are established. *

Symbolical example:

ABC is followed by xyz

BC is known to be casually connected with yz

A is the cause of a

This method applies the new principle of elimination added by Joseph. It follows the principle; nothing is the cause of a phenomenon which is known to be the cause of a different phenomenon.

In the above example since y and z are known to be related with B and C, y and z cannot be causally connected with A. Hence the remaining one x is causally connected with A.

Concrete examples:

1. The cost of three articles A, B and C is Rs. 100/-. It is known that the cost of B is

Rs. 35/- and C is Rs. 25/-. It is obvious that the cost of A is Rs. 40/- which is the subduct of B and C from ABC.

2. A shopkeeper wants to know the weight of the oil in a container. He weighs it and from that weight deducts the weight of the empty container. That helps him to determine the weight of the oil.

Characteristics:

This method is said to be a method of discovery. In a complex situation when some part of the phenomenon is not explained by the known causes this method may help to find out a further cause to explain the whole phenomenon. Mellone says that it is a “Finger post of the unexplained”.

Argon, a gas, was discovered by help of this method. When nitrogen gas collected from the atmosphere was found heavier than the nitrogen prepared in the laboratory, it was assumed that some gas might be mixed up with atmospheric nitrogen and by this method argon was discovered.

It is considered as the modification of the method of difference. Because both the methods employ only two instances. But this view does not seem to be proper for the reason that the method of residues is a deductive method but the method of difference cannot be considered as a deductive method.

Method of difference obtains the negative instance by observation or experiment, as the case may be, but the method of residues obtains the negative instance by prior induction.

The method of residues is essentially a method of deduction. One can clearly notice in this case that the knowledge obtained is deducted from the total observational knowledge in order to get the conclusion.

One only follows a method of deduction to reach at the conclusion. In the symbolical example we have deducted BC and xy from ABC and xyz respectively to get the relation between A and x. For this reason it is considered as a deductive method.

Since we adopt the method of subtraction, it is claimed to be a deductive method. But primarily it is an induction because the method of subtraction is applied only to the cases of two observational instances.

The method of residues holds good only when there is some prior knowledge of causation. In no other method of experimental inquiry there is the essential need of some prior causal knowledge.

Along with the previous knowledge if something more “is found as unexplained, it takes the shape of a hypothesis. An attempt to explain this unexplained factor leads to the application of this method. Thus this method holds good only when there is some prior knowledge of causation.

There was the knowledge about the path of movement of Uranus. But when was Uranus found to deviate from its calculated path, the cause of the deviation was suspected and the hypothesis was framed that the deviation might be due to some other planet. Infect, it helped in the discovery of the planet Neptune in this manner.

It is considered as the application of the method of residues for the reason that the effect of the known planet was deducted from the total effect of gravitational pull of Uranus. The trial to solve the hypothesis helped to find out the causal relation­ship.

Advantages:

1. This method is used is advanced stage of scientific analysis. When in scientific analysis the data are collected by experiment the method of residues helps in ascertaing a causal relationship between two phenomena.

2. It follows the method of experiment. So its finding is highly probable. It has the advantages of experiment.

3. It can deal with complex phenomenon. Especially the method-is useful in case of intermixture of effects.

Disadvantages:

1. Without previous knowledge of causal relation the method of residues cannot be applied.

2. If the complex effect cannot be reduced or analyzed, then this method cannot be applied.

3. This method may confuse an irrelevant factor to be the cause.

Science as an intellectual enterprise has greatly contributed to human society and culture. Its development and applications have very much benefited human society.

Particularly modern science and technology have changed almost all aspects of our lives. “Science” and “Scientific” are very commonly used terms of our discourse.

But the terms are not used univocally and it is difficult to bring out their exact connotations. So conceptual clarity about the terms “science” and “scientific” will help us to understand the idea of scientific order, system and explanation.

The term science is sometimes used in a broad sense to mean any systematic body of knowledge.

Sometimes it is also used in a narrow sense to mean an experimental study. In the broad sense if science would be taken to mean systematic body of knowledge then many non-empirical disciplines would be included in the scope of science.

In this sense mathematics, ethics, aesthetics, logic will be called as science for in each of these branches of intellectual enterprise there is systematic body of knowledge.

Mathematics is termed as formal science in which from limited axioms and definitions theorems are deductively deduced. Ethics, aesthetics are termed as normative sciences for they are goal-oriented.

They fix up some idea or norm and regulate their enterprise for the realisation of some norm. Again sometimes the term science is used in a narrow sense to denote only experimental studies.

In this sense some social sciences will be excluded from the scope of science. But the term science is usually used in such a way that social sciences are a part of scientific study. We shall see that what we generally call science has a distinct method as well as subject matter.

Particularly the scientific method plays an important role in determining the scope of science from non-science.

Similarly the term scientific is generally used to mean reasonable explanation. Facts of experience are scientifically explained by following a definite procedure which is characterised as scientific procedure.

That means scientific explanation follows a general pattern of reasoning. In this pattern of reasoning conclusions are derived on the basis of empirical evidence. Any inquiry whether in professional science or in practical

situation that adopts the general pattern of reasoning is characterised as scientific. In the course of illustration this will be discussed in this chapter.

Leaving aside the broad or the narrow sense of science let us see how it is generally used. Science is described as a systematic body of classified empirical knowledge obtained by the inductive procedure.

This description includes natural science as well as social science in the fold of scientific discourse. For in each case we derive systematic knowledge about the facts or phenomena that we come across. Facts, events and processes may relate to nature or to human society.

While physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc. come under the spere of natural science, sociology, economics, politics etc. come under the spere of social science.

The former group of sciences studies natural phenomena by systematically classifying them; the latter group studies in a like manner the social events. For our convenience we categorize them and bring them under different branches. More progress means more specialization.

Thus while natural sciences explain natural phenomena the social sciences explain social events. Both the areas deal with facts of experience.

Any observable phenomenon can be brought under some specialized branch and be explained under the methodological procedure of science.

Thus when we describe scientific knowledge as something empirical, it means its realm consists the facts of experience.

Facts of experience mean what is observable. We observe the phenomena by help of our sense organs. By our sense organs we know the external world. But sometimes our sense organs are not capable to preceive some phenomena because of their complexity, distance or peculiar nature.

So some apparatuses or even very sophisticated instruments are used to make our study accurate. For example, we use a telescope to see very distant things even the heavenly bodies, an X-Ray instrument to know the inner part of human body, a stethoscope to listen the heart and its .sound etc.

Thus what is observed either directly or indirectly, either by crude sense organs or by some sophisticated instrument, either from nature or under controlled conditions is termed as empirical facts.

Hence scientific knowledge is basically and fundamentally about the world of empirical facts. Scientific inquiry does not admit any supernatural or mystical events.

According to the assumption of science nothing is supernatural, theological or mystical. Something is supernatural if in principle it violates the natural order.

There are mysteries in nature but no miracle or supernatural event. A miracle is supposed to be an event that defies a well-established law of nature. Thus the realm of science is quite incompatible with the idea of supernaturalism or miracles.

Further scientific knowledge is progressive. Any theory of science is subject to change and modification in face of new evidence or fact. No scientific theory is infallible or sacrosanct.

Since nature is vast and unlimited our knowledge of nature cannot be final or ultimate. More progress in civilization means more exploration in the secrets of nature.

According to Bacon the book of nature is lying open before us to be explored and studied. What was a mystery in the past comes to the comprehension of a school-boy now and what appears a mystery at present will be explained in the days to come.

The horizon of scientific knowledge is ever expanding with new discoveries and explorations.

The most important characteristic feature of the scientific inquiry is its methodology. The scientific method provides the most viable and regenerative process of acquiring dependable knowledge.

The scientific method is always faithful to objectivity or realm of facts. That means the scientific method consists of observation of facts, formation of hypothesis and confirmation or verification of the hypothesis. Facts, events, processes, happenings etc. need explanation.

To seek an explanation means to give reasons why something is as it is. There are innumerable phenomena occurring around us and an inquisitive mind seeks to explain them.

Explanation demands observation. After careful observation we form a hypothesis to account for a possible explanation. Suppose a disease is to be explained. Some hypothesis can be formed after observing the relevant facts.

The hypothesis needs to be verified by further observation. If the facts corroborate the hypothesis in question, then it will be accepted. Lest the hypothesis will be rejected and a fresh one may be imagined.

A scientific hypothesis must be tested or in principle must be testable either to confirm it or to reject it.

This process continues till the proper explanation is found out. Once a hypothesis is confirmed it can act as a law or theory to explain same events under similar conditions. This procedure constitutes the significant feature of scientific method.

Thus the realm of scientific knowledge consists in the procedure or method that is adopted to have systematic knowledge.

This procedure keeps some studies outside the realm of scientific knowledge. Subjects like astrology, palmistry, numerology etc. give the impression that they have a scientific basis. But there areas do not fulfill the basic requirements of scientific study. An astrological prediction is not like scientific genralisations.

The possible laws of astrology or palmistry are not based on the principle of causality. Nor are they linked with any coherent system of knowledge. When exceptions are noticed in astrological predictions, the laws are not rejected.

Rather astrologers or soothsayers take their generalisations or laws as infallible. This is quite contrary to the very spirit of science. Thus science deals with phenomena which are observable, and follows a distinct method to explain them.

Thus scientific knowledge is systematic and methodical. Science systematizes the facts and classifies them by following some order.

Every branch of science centers round some very key concepts. Whether it is a branch of social science or natural science the facts are collected, observed, systematized by help of some important ideas.

The observed facts are welded together and explained by help of some definite set of ideas. Science aims at establishing an order in the process of systematization. Reaching an order is the very purpose of science. Let us see the concept of order in science.

The most familiar order is the classificatory order. Here things are recognised as belonging to one category and are assigned names.

We assign names such as ‘dog’, ‘cat’, ‘milk’, ‘tree’ etc. to individual things and make each of them a distinct class.

A layman also classifies things, animals or events into classes. In the most primitive stage of man’s history things, events or animals have been classified on the ground of

Natural similarity. On the basis of natural resemblance the dogs make a class as the members resemble one another on important points, and differ from other classes. Dogs are different from cats as cats make a class on the basis of inherent resemblances. This classification is done mostly from a practical point of view.

But in science the classificatory order is introduced on the basis of structural similarity. On the ground of certain characteristic resemblances classification is made. Cats, dogs, cows, whales are classified as mammals; iron, copper, lead, mercury are classed as metals; and iron, oxygen, gold…. are classed as elements on some deep seated points of similarity.

A structural similarity is connected with some important properties. Thus scientific classification helps to know the important or structural points of resemblances among the members and the invariable properties associated with them.

Classification of man on the basis of caste, religion, nationality etc. is an artificial or superficial classification whereas classification on the basis of sex, blood group, dominating racial character etc. is a structural classification.

Scientific classification on the basis of structural resemblance also reveals common invariable properties. Thus classificatory order is used in science to classify things on the basis of certain deep-seated functional similarities.

Though the process of classifying and cataloguing is the lowest level of order in science, still it widens our knowledge and deepens our understanding. For our knowledge of classification helps to know or infer the properties of the said class. So the process of classifying our experience will never be complete.

Some less developed sciences like genetics, psychiatry, life science etc. mostly follow this classificatory order.