In Robert Pool's book, "Beyond Engineering: How Society Shapes
Technology," he discusses the two schools of thought on the subject
"how we know what we know," or more simply, "what is the nature of
knowledge?"
The first school goes by the name of "positivism" or "objectivism" and
is based on the physical sciences. It accepts only that which has
been verified by hypothesis formation and testing, but as we all know,
it is impossible to verify anything absolutely, no matter how many
times we test. However, positivists generally accept knowledge that
has been verified beyond a reasonable doubt. Karl Popper put it this
way: Scientific statements are those that can be put to the test and
potentially proven wrong. It is not possible to prove that a
hypothesis is true, but if the hypothesis is tested extensively and
never proven false, then one accepts it as provisionally true. And if
it turns out to be false in certain situations, then it can be
modified or replaced.
Thus, according to the positivists, absolute knowledge is unattainable
(and you been wonder why there is never enough research <SMILE>).
This insistence on verification is both positivism's strength and
weakness.
Social scientists also took this positivism approach. However, in the
last couple of decades, many of them have taken a different approach
in the quest for human knowledge -- "social construction" or
"interpretation." It is designed to deal with social reality -- the
web of relationships, institutions, organizations, shared beliefs,
cultures, and meanings that exists in a group of people. While
positivists speak of proof, social constructionists speak of
interpretations.
Thus, positivists look at knowledge as arising from nature and being
objective, social constructionists see knowledge as arising from the
human mind and being subjective.
Social constructionists believe that ALL human knowledge is social
knowledge, after all, knowledge is created by groups of people. So
while the positivists have been willing to defer "social knowledge" to
the social constructionists, the social constructionists have been
unwilling to return the favor. Yet, while all knowledge may indeed be
a social creation, it is never-less, epistemologically special. So
while social construction theory may be useful in explaining social
knowledge, it is of very little help in explaining the hard sciences,
such as quantum mechanics.
I kind of take a middle of the road approach. That is, the mere
complexity of human nature and learning makes social construction's
approach of interpreting the many webs of relationships an ideal
approach for expanding and growing our profession. While at the same
time, we must also adjust or modify a view if research shows it to
false.
One of the drivers of the way we approach our professions is the
prevailing paradigm. In "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,"
Thomas Kuhn writes that most science takes place within a "paradigm"
-- a set of beliefs and expectations that guide the research, defining
what questions are important and designating the proper ways to go
about answering them.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
Big Dog's Bowl of Biscuits
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~ |
