Scientific Disagreement and the Pursuit of Knowledge, Research Paper Example

Let us consider the following scenario. Dr. X, a well-respected researcher in the biological sciences and an outstanding member of the faculty has just completed a two year-long study on the biological and genetic factors that determine criminal behavior in adult males. Overall, Dr. X is convinced that criminal behavior is genetically linked, due to possessing some hard scientific evidence for support.

At the same time, Dr. Y, also a well-respected researcher in the field of human psychology, has completed a year-long study on the psychological aspects of criminal behavior in adult males. And like Dr. X, he is also convinced via supportive scientific evidence that criminal behavior is based on the psychology of the mind and is linked to certain mental disorders. At some point, these two doctors meet up and begin to discuss their findings, but as their discussion continues, they reach a stalemate or disagreement over biology vs. psychology in relation to criminal behavior.

Both Dr. X and Dr. Y via their independent research studies are pursuing the truth and/or searching for knowledge concerning the foundations of human criminal behavior. Of course, as scientists and researchers, both Dr. X and Dr. Y understand that biology as a natural science and psychology as a human science sometimes overlap, meaning that a researcher/psychologist often depends on biopsychology or the “study of personality development and functioning via the interaction of the body and the mind” (Papini, 2007, p. 284) to arrive at a conclusion; likewise, a researcher/biologist often finds it necessary to rely upon psychology to help answer a research question, especially comparative psychology which M.R. Papini describes as “the study of human behavior as it relates to or differs from animal behavior via the psychologic and behavioral differences” among various people, societies, and cultures (2007, p. 284). Papini adds that psychological motivators related to certain types of human behavior (in this case criminal behavior) have been shown to be genetically linked; this also holds true for physiological motivators related to criminal behavior, such as brain trauma or some type of physical abuse during childhood (2007, p. 285).

In essence, the base of the disagreement between Dr. X and Dr. Y is that the first is convinced that genetics and heredity is the sole motivator for criminal behavior, while the second is convinced that criminal behavior is wholly dependent on psychology. Although this disagreement or difference in hypotheses between Dr. X and Dr. Y may at first seem detrimental, it does in fact often assist in the pursuit of new knowledge and information, particularly when 1), the two dissenting parties agree that they disagree and then decide to combine their research results to arrive at a satisfactory and agreeable solution or answer, or 2), one or both of the parties decides to review their findings in order to formulate a new hypothesis.

As professional researchers in their chosen fields of inquiry, both Dr. X and Dr. Y utilized the scientific method in order to conduct their independent studies on the foundations of criminal behavior in adult males. In basic terms, there are four specific steps related to the scientific method of inquiry that all scientists follow, usually without any kind of deviation.

The first step is to observe a phenomenon (i.e., criminal behavior) and ask questions about it related to how the phenomenon functions and possible explanations for it. The second step is to design a hypothesis or theory that can be tested either in the laboratory or in the field. The third step is experimental or designing and carrying out “an experiment that is capable of testing the hypothesis” and one that will “produce results that either clearly supports or clearly disproves the hypothesis” (Scientific Method Tutorial, 2011). The fourth step involves analyzing all of the results and stating a conclusion; however, the hypothesis must be rejected if “the results are not consistent with the hypothesis” and vice versa. In addition, it should be noted that a hypothesis cannot be guaranteed to be true and accurate even when the results support it, due to the fact that “there may be other explanations other than the hypothesis for the experimental results” (Scientific Method Tutorial, 2011).

Both Dr. X and Dr. Y, being very knowledgeable and experienced in their independent fields of study, came to their conclusions regarding the foundations of criminal behavior in adult males by following to the letter all four of the steps outlined above. However, coming to wholly different conclusions might be explained by the intricacies of the third step. Besides the utilization of independent and dependent variables, both scientists employed an experimental group in which the “independent variable is set to an unusual or test level,” and a control group of which the experimental group is compared and wherein “the independent variable is set to a normal or usual level” (Scientific Method Tutorial, 2011). As might be suspected, the utilization of experimental and control groups is sometimes flawed, due to great variations in the human condition which might explain why our scientists came to such divergent conclusions.

In the journal article “Sustaining a Rational Disagreement,” Christoph Kelp and Igor Douven examine the entire scope and range of scientific disagreements and open their discussion with a very relevant quote from Thomas Kuhn, author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). According to Kuhn, in relation to scientific disagreements, “variability of judgment may be essential to scientific advance” (2010, p. 2), an indication that when two researchers like Dr. X and Dr. Y disagree concerning their independent findings, variability or a variation in a researcher’s final judgment call can lead to new knowledge or scientific advance.

Kelp and Douven also point out that variability often occurs when the perceptions of a given researcher are influenced by his/her expectations which depend upon “theoretical presumptions” (2010, p. 2) or assumptions made by the researcher before conducting a given study. This phenomenon, even under the best of testing conditions, cannot be avoided, due to the human tendency to assume that something is true and accurate without any evidence to back it up.

In addition, Kelp and Douven explore the concept of peer disagreement which usually involves two peers (i.e., individuals with equal standing and recognition) that have similar evidence “yet hold different doxastic attitudes” or opinions on the presented evidence. In this case, one of the researchers usually decides to re-evaluate his evidence and hypothesis and move in the direction of what the other researcher has discovered (2010, p. 4). When this occurs, new knowledge is revealed; however, this revelation of new knowledge often provides the other researcher with an edge or a promotion of his/her ideas, opinions, and findings which in itself can lead to a new angle or direction for further research, thus increasing the amount of new knowledge.

Unfortunately, this type of scenario can lead to continuing disputes between the researchers which tends to stall the arrival of new knowledge. A great example is the dispute between Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell and German physicist Ludwig Boltzmann in 1871 concerning “Boltzmann’s explanation of a specific heat anomaly in the kinetic theory of gases” (Kelp & Douven, 2010, p. 4). Both of these physicist were so convinced that their finding were correct that the dispute continued for many years until modern physics showed that Maxwell’s findings were more closer to reality that those of his “peer” in Germany.

Likewise, in “Disagreement in Science,” Andrew Lugg attempts to disprove several common misconceptions concerning scientific disagreement. For example, Lugg notes that contrary to popular belief, “a certain degree of disagreement is to be expected and is even desirable” between researchers in the natural and human sciences. Lugg also posits that the “relatively common position that disagreement between scientists” and researchers “is unnecessary and even counter-productive” is patently untrue (1978, p. 276).

Overall then, disagreement or a difference in opinion based on study results and concluding hypotheses, such as with Dr. X the biologist and Dr. Y the psychologist, can under the right circumstances and with the cooperation of both parties open the proverbial door to new knowledge and information.

As Lugg sees it, despite the fact that independent scientists and researchers often disagree along sometimes irrational lines, they still may be able to close the knowledge gap via argumentation, open debate (such as in a peer-reviewed scholarly publication), deep inquiry into their respective studies, and more research (1986) which hopefully will result in some form of consensus in order to bring about more knowledge and a better understanding of the subject matter at hand.

References

Kelp, C., & Douven, I. (2010). Sustaining a rational disagreement. Retrieved from http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/5231/1/SRD1.pdf

Lugg, A. (1986). Deep disagreement and informal logic: No cause for alarm. Retrieved from http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/2680/2121

—. (1978). Disagreement in science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science (9)2, 276-292. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/u68392q37134410t

Papini, M.R. (2007). Comparative psychology: Evolution and development of  human behavior. 2nd. ed. New York: Psychology Press.

Scientific method tutorial. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/BIO101lab-1.pdf