Contextualizing Scientific Method-Based Discoveries in a Syllogistic Framework

The scientific method, at its core, is the formulation and testing of hypotheses to discern their veracity and accuracy. This description, though comically simple, is sufficient for purposes of this blog. Scientists often attempt to differentiate science from other human endeavors. In my direct personal experience, scientists also resist, oftentimes very fiercely, the idea of science being likened to philosophy in any way. Perhaps this may account for, at least in some small measure, the fact that the logical/epistemological frameworks devised for purposes of advancing scientific discoveries do not resemble (at least not conveniently) the logical/epistemological frameworks utilized by philosophers. While the scientific method’s framework is generally not juxtaposed with the syllogistic framework devised by philosophers for purposes of studying logical reasoning and argumentation, in my opinion even a cursory examination reveals that the scientific method is merely an extension of it.

First, consider that a syllogism is the basic structural unit of a reasoned argument. It constitutes reasons (i.e., premises; whether valid or not) that add up to a conclusion (whether valid or not). A basic syllogism can be represented in the following form:

    Premise

+ Premise

      = Conclusion

 

Now consider a pictorial representation of the scientific method:

 

Viewed in the afterimage of the logical structure of an argument, it should immediately convey that the scientific method, and indeed the practice of science itself, largely entails the discovery, and even the creation, of the relevant empirical reasons (i.e., premises) that eventually facilitate likely and appropriate scientific inferences. This is accomplished primarily through testing and experimentation. Testing is conducted to falsify and discard or to affirm various hypotheses. The outcome of this testing and experimentation is evidential in nature. Specifically, the testing provides evidence that must be carefully evaluated as to whether it should be allowed to become the basis for further reasoning regarding the specific matter of inquiry. In other words, the evidence becomes the premise upon which we base any subsequent conclusion(s). In this context, the earlier discussed syllogism accommodates the scientific method in the following basic modified form:

 

   Evidence (amassed through experimentation)

+ Evidence (amassed through experimentation)

= Conclusion________________________

 

The discovery and elimination of faulty hypotheses reduces the chances that a practitioner of science will utilize incorrect or irrelevant premises in forming a conclusion. Repeated testing of hypotheses can also help ensure that a practitioner will not prioritize marginally relevant evidence over highly relevant evidence by ascertaining the evidence’s relative degree of relevance. Consider that in the absence of rigorous testing of the hypotheses and the evaluation of the results therefrom, a practitioner is liable to making the mistake of using incorrect, invalid, or only marginally relevant assumptions (i.e., untested hypotheses) as premises in drawing an ultimately incorrect scientific conclusion.

On a related note, it should be mentioned that while a hypothesis is a form of assumption, it is its teleology that distinguishes it from an assumption. To wit, an assumption is something that is regarded as certain without any proof—a placeholder, if you will—for purposes of further reasoning. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is a specific kind of assumption that is to be tested for its veracity and accuracy. In this sense, a hypothesis can be thought of as a subset of an assumption. The main point to absorb is that garbage in equals garbage out and thus why the introduction of only appropriate premises into the decisional matrix is such an important task. The chief purpose of the rigorous testing of hypotheses is the setting of strong filters to exclude extraneous premises from the syllogistic framework. The trial-and-error minimizes the chances of allowing faulty notions to enter reasoning (i.e., decision-making).