Science uses three fundamental methods to distinguish and categorise the subjects that it holds. If we look into science in its current meaning -referred only to mathematics, logics and the sciences of nature-, we can distinguish the use of three fundamental methods: The first one is symbolic-deductive (logic, mathematics, geometry, etc.) a second one is experimental (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) and the third one is systematic- classificatory (prevalent in biological sciences).
The experimental method observes many single natural facts and from the similarities it tries to elaborate a general enunciation (natural law). In this method a law is extracted from single facts and unless there has been errors in the procedure or in the experimentation, once it has been formulated and verified it will be valid. And consequently science and other applications (technical, such as artistic materials) evolve through this procedure of adding up all natural laws that have been progressively discovered.
But this is not completely true: from single facts nothing can be extracted and all particular facts will continue to be particular if the scientist wouldn’t advance a general model, a hypothesis that later will be confirmed as valid or not. The supposition that Galileo Galilei used in gravity “the acceleration is proportional to the length of the fall of the body” was changed by him until the facts revealed that another hypothesis was correct, that is “the acceleration is proportional to the time of the fall”. Another example is to be mentioned in order to understand the general method leading to the formulation of laws. When a scientist investigates the magnetic field given out from a wire, one or two variables (electrical current, resistance) are taken in account are that have an effect on it. If the scientist confirms his conclusions from his observations, he can move on to the next experiment where he could take into account other variables to broaden his investigation. Scientists take into account many variables using instruments that interact with each other, however, the fewer the variables, the better the experiments.
The systematic - classificatory method deals basically with nomenclature and classification of names within biological sciences, art and psychology but has importance when considering living things and natural or aesthetic phenomena that are intimately related. The task of this method is to reunite all similar forms of individuals or phenomena into larger groups in order to obtain even larger groups that permit a complete classification. And so doing the very accurate description of each form is vital in order to reunite those who present the larger number of common characteristics. After this process of description a constructive phase take place, which is extremely complex due to the complexity of nature. Example: Animals and plants are supposedly separated by very defined limits but in nature there are intermediate forms such as corals and certain types of fungi and algae that share characteristics of both of the animal and vegetable kingdom. Even in less scientific areas, many persons have questioned if newer art forms, such as cinematography and even photography, belong in an art book. This is a problem of classification.
All these methods are reunited in many areas of knowledge in general: deductive reasoning is part of the experimental method when choosing the postulate or premise because it is theoretical. Theory and verification are merged and alternate continuously in a dynamic process. The necessity of classification is also felt within the reality of investigation. In conclusion, due to the convergence and integration of these methods within human investigation in its complexity, there is a deep methodological unity within science and all areas of knowledge.
Strong relations exist between areas of knowledge due to the fact that all participate in this common trunk. There is a common ground and a familiarity due to the unity of creation. Knowledge concerns an activity that is in substance dynamic and unitary.
When Levis said that God did separate Heavens from Earth but did not separate marine biology from astronomy, he not only meant that science shouldn’t affect religion but rather that classifications between sciences and areas of knowledge are arbitrary and manmade and not decided by God. Whenever mankind encountered topics of interest, he established a discipline and a new area of knowledge emerged.
What mankind has not yet studied thoroughly is why this happens. The fact that all disciplines participate in a certain union of creation probably makes them relate to each other. A discipline such as a “pan science” has not been adequately studied because it requires time and tools that have not been yet discovered. Some scientists are still trying to discover a unitary theory of the entire universe, which would explain DNA, reptiles and outer space through uniform proportions.
The discovery of a study that is omni comprehensive of the universe has been attempted by different authors throughout history. In the twentieth century and in particular the spatial dimensional point of view has been studied by Matila Ghyka and even Pythagoras mentioned a constant proportion 0.618 (the Golden Number) in all matter in the universe, big or small, be it macro or microcosmical.
There is no such thing as a definite classification of areas of knowledge. Apparent differences between biological sciences and inorganic phenomena are considered and reunited in new relationships, for example: biophysics, biochemistry, radiobiology, genetics and informatics, etc. The inevitable changing of such classifications is due to progress. The methodological unity which we have seen and the fact that analogical structural levels are seen in all areas of knowledge, the existence of disciplines that have applications in many sectors such as Philosophical Aesthetics and the theory of information, the always larger importance of border line sciences (Physics – chemistry, biochemistry and biophysics etc.) show us that these distinctions are unstable. One example that can be mentioned is the picture “Guernica” painted by Pablo Picasso. It is enormous oil on canvas depicting a scene of tragedy and destruction. People and animals are crying and shouting, they are being bombed from the sky. Additionally, it can be seen that a horse is asking for help. The visual details of the picture can be better analysed only if the historical background is known. Guernica is a city in the province of Vizcaya in Spain, which was destroyed during the Spanish civil war from 1936 until 1939. If Guernica wouldn’t have been bombarded the picture wouldn’t exist. In brief, history and art combine in Guernica.
As we have been seen beforehand, knowledge is interrelated. There are no definite boundaries between one area of knowledge and another. History can explain art and geography can explain economy, however, most people often do not associate facts and pictures or whichever type of information to the historical background and other relevant issues that may explain them better.
The future holds novel instruments and tools for new discoveries in the micro and the macro spheres of nature. New areas of knowledge are apt to be recognized, identified and studied. Hundreds of new disciplines might arise and all will have the old philosophical trunk in common: the participation in creation, in its unity and its singularity to the planet Earth.
Wordcount: 1617
Bibliography
Fedele, Pietro. (Grande Dizionario Enciclopedico, Second Edition, Vol.XI Scienza, Turin, 1961)
EDITORIAL CUMBRE S. A., (Enciclopedia Ilustrada Cumbre, Editorial cumbre, Volumen 7, México, 1984)
C. Ghyka, Matila. (Estética de las proporciones en la naturaleza y en las artes, POSEIDON, S.R.L, Segunda edición, Buenos Aires, 1953)
