Theory of Knowledge essay title no.3 (session: May 2010 )

As an observer is not able to determine what an observed person is thinking, the second method of gaining supportive data is just simply asking him. There are surveys, pools, questionnaires that are used here. However, as well as with the observations, it is doubtful if person does not even slightly change his opinion into that which he thinks interviewer wants to hear (this is called demand characteristics). The outcome of surveys also highly depends on the language of questions and even of an appearance of a questioner. For example question “Is killing an unborn child a violation?” might influence one’s answer as the language used is not neutral. In general, the strength of qualitative data obtained though observations and surveys is that it could be easily gathered; however, it is other highly biased. Although it is possible to convert the qualitative data gained from the observations and questionnaires into the numerical data, the reliability of it is highly arguable.  

The third and the last method of gaining data in human sciences is an experimental method. A great example of this method could be Milgram’s famous obedience experiment (1965) in which he tried to explore to what extend humans obey to the given orders in a situation in which pain to another human being is introduced. His results were that two thirds of all participants gave the maximum (450V) shock to another person. Using the outcome of his experiment, Milgram explained the phenomena why, for instance, Hitler’s commands were so perfectly obeyed and so many Jewish were killed. As one might imagine, this experiment, as many other psychology experiments, is ethically doubtful. Participants, who learned as being abusive, had felt distress and constraint, which goes against the principal precepts (of not only medics, but also psychologists): Primum non nocere (a Latin phrase that means “First, do no harm”). One might also argue that experiment lacks ecological validity as participants might have had an idea that electric shocks were genuine and the whole experiment was rather a simulation. Similarly, knowledge claim of psychology which states that people are conforming to the opinion of a group to which they belong might also be supported by designing an experiment. The Asch conformity experiments were a series of studies published in the 1950s that demonstrated the power of conformity in groups. These experiments often included a group of confederates who claimed that something is not true in case it was true, and, actually, the majority of real participants got influenced by those confederates. As well as Milgram’s, Asch’s data could be criticized due to lack of ecological validity and ethical considerations, such as deception (which means not saying the real aim of the experiment). Therefore, data obtained from the experiment (quantitative data) is not necessarily true as there might be controversy due to various external conditions, such as difficulties in controlling variables, or experimenter’s personal relevance (e.g. an observer might have faith in certain results so he might hide controversial ones and emphasize only satisfying ones, which is called confirmation bias).

Similarly like in human sciences, in natural sciences methods of obtaining supportive data are experimental and observation methods. Last year, during the biology class, we have been microscoping different plant’s cells and judging witch plants were more adapted to photosynthesize. The results from observations were that Elodea seemed to have the largest amount of “green spots”; hence, it might photosynthesize in the greatest amounts. This was only a hypothesis with no strong empirical support (we did not investigate the real photosynthesized amounts of organic matter of Elodea); hence, our hypothesis should not be treated as a bear truth. Although the qualitative data from observations is of relatively low validity, its strengths are that it is easily obtainable and questionable further. In contrast to observational method, many natural sciences knowledge claims are based according to the data obtained from the experimental method. This method basically includes constructing a hypothesis, carrying out an experiment, gathering data, and formulating a law. One well known example from the history of the science would be Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleyev who had came up with the idea that every chemical element could be arranged due to its atomic weight. He successfully managed to fit the majority of elements into his model by performing an experimental model of weighting separate elements. Although some of the elements didn’t fit into his model, he deduced that it was due to imprecision of measurements.

Outcome from the experimental method gives us quantitative data. It is more reliable than qualitative data in both human and natural sciences. As well as with deductions from the observations of Elodea, survey about whether the economical depression will arrive would reveal only subjective predictions, hence qualitative data. In contrary, an investigation into past times similar economical situations and evaluating gathered data from the variety of different perspectives (Cubist Theory of Histories) statistically would be more reliable source of supporting the knowledge claim “Economical depression is coming to our country”. Nevertheless, there are lots of ways how to present the same numbers statistically ant the outcome might differ drastically. For instance, if we count how many medals each country get in one Olympic Games, the first country in the ranking might be, for example, USA. Then, if we give 1 point bronze, 2 to silver and 3 to gold medal, the ranking changes in favor to those countries which got more gold medals. Finally, if we divide the total amount of point by the population of particular country, USA, for example, might no longer be in the first place, as its population is very big and some small country, such as Tonga, reach the first position, because its population is relatively small.

Mendeleyev’s experiment perfectly reveals the strengths and limitations of quantitative data, gathered due to experimental method. Firstly, as Mendeleyev periodical table of elements changed only a little from the time of creation till now, it might be said that empirically supported data is reliable. However, these changes might be explained in terms that data from experiment that is being gathered by experimenter might be altered due to certain factors as expectations, expert seeing and confirmation bias. At the beginning of my essay, I claimed that qualitative data if compared to quantitative is less reliable when in human or natural sciences. Perhaps due to the successful choices of examples, I might have made my point though the essay. Qualitative data, such as predictions made from surveys, or hypotheses conducted through observations, does not really stand on the same level of validity as results of keen investigation into the variety of factors about an unknown phenomenon. In the nature sciences, quantitative data is even harder to deny and such example as Mendeleyev’s periodic table shows, that no one really managed to do it in the account of a century! However, even now the numerical data of scientific researches is criticized according to ecological, experimental validities or ethical considerations. Moreover, it is likely that after some decades the technologies will be even more advanced and counter arguments will be found against the theories such as Mendeleyev’s or Milgram’s ones. Then, my arguments might be not valid anymore and the thesis that quantitative data is more reliable than qualitative might actually become completely incorrect.

WORD COUNT: 1581