SOLVED ASSIGNMENT
No. 01
Foundation of Science Education
(8627) B.Ed (1.5 Years)
Spring, 2018
Q. 1 Explore the relationship between Modern
Science and Fiqah in Islam. Give your views with evidence in this regard. (20)
Science and technology
is a growing field in Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan 15 August 1947 – 16
October 1951 ), made various reforms to initiate improvement in higher
education and scientific research.
The majority of
research publications in Pakistan have been in the field of chemistry, with the
International Center for Chemical and Biological Sciences under the leadership
of Prof. Atta-ur-Rahman FRS playing the lead role.Physics (theoretical,
nuclear, particle, laser, and quantum physics), material science, metallurgy
(engineering), biology, and mathematics, are some of the other fields in which
Pakistani scientists have contributed. From the 1960s and onwards, the
Pakistani government made the development and advancement of science a national
priority and showered top scientists with honours. While the government has
made efforts to make science a part of national development, there have been
criticisms of federal policies, such as the government's dissolution of the
Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC)— an administrative body that supervised
research in science — in 2011. This attempted dissolution failed to materialise
because of a Supreme Court of Pakistan decision on a petition filed by Prof.
Atta-ur-Rahman, former Federal Minister of Science & technology and former
founding Chairman of the Higher Education Commission.Pakistani scientists have
also won acclaim in mathematics and in several branches of physical science,
notably theoretical and nuclear physics, chemistry, and astronomy. Professor
Abdus Salam, a theoretical physicist won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979,
being the first and only Pakistani to date to have received the honor.
Technology is most
highly developed in nuclear physics and explosives engineering, where the arms
race with India Pakistan 30
May 1998 , two weeks after India Pakistan
State controlled science
Unlike some Western
countries, the majority of the research programmes are conducted not at the
institutions (such as universities) but at specially set up research facilities
and institutes. These institutes are performed under the government's Ministry
of Science that overlooks the development and promotion of science in the
country, while others are performed under the Pakistan Academy of Sciences,
other specialized academies and even the research arms of various government
ministries. At first, the core of fundamental science was the Pakistan Academy
of Sciences, originally set up in 1953 and moved from Karachi Islamabad Government College University Quaid-e-Azam University Pakistan
During the 1950s and
1960s, both West Pakistan and East Pakistan had their own academies of science,
with the East Pakistan relying on West Pakistan to allot the funds.[4] Medical
research is coordinated and funded by the Health Ministry and agricultural
research is led by Agriculture Ministr and likewise, the research on
environmental sciences is headed by the Environment Ministry.
An aftermath of the
1971 Indo-Pakistan Winter War was that President Bhutto increased scientific
funding by the Government by more than 200%, mostly dedicated to military
research and development. Bhutto, with the help of his Science Adviser Dr.
Salam, gathered hundreds of Pakistani scientists working abroad to develop what
became Pakistan Pakistan United Kingdom UK Pakistan
Export the sensitive industrial
Zia-ul-Haq later
promoted Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan to export the sensitive industrial (military)
technologies to Libya Iran North Korea Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan Pakistan U.S. U.S. Pakistan United States
Q. 2 Why there is a decline of Science and
technology in Muslim world nowadays? (20)
Muslim scholars calculated the angle of the ecliptic; measured the
size of the Earth; calculated the precession of the equinoxes; explained, in
the field of optics and physics, such phenomena as refraction of light,
gravity, capillary attraction, and twilight; and developed observatories for
the empirical study of heavenly bodies. They made advances in the uses of
drugs, herbs, and foods for medication; established hospitals with a system of
interns and externs; discovered causes of certain diseases and developed
correct diagnoses of them; proposed new concepts of hygiene; made use of
anesthetics in surgery with newly innovated surgical tools; and introduced the
science of dissection in anatomy.
Muslims furthered the scientific breeding of horses and cattle; found
new ways of grafting to produce new types of flowers and fruits; introduced new
concepts of irrigation, fertilization, and soil cultivation; and improved upon
the science of navigation. In the area of chemistry, Muslim scholarship led to
the discovery of such substances as potash, alcohol, nitrate of silver, nitric
acid, sulfuric acid, and mercury chloride.
Muslims scientists also developed to a high degree of perfection the
arts of textiles, ceramics, and metallurgy.” According to a US study published
by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in its Journal on 21
February 2007; ‘Designs on surface tiles in the Islamic world during the
Middle Ages revealed their maker’s understanding of mathematical concepts not grasped
in the West until 500 years later. Many Medieval Islamic buildings walls have
ornate geometric star and polygon or ‘girih’, patterns, which are often
overlaid with a swirling network of lines – This girih tile method was more
efficient and precise than the previous approach, allowing for an important
breakthrough in Islamic mathematics and design.’
Muslims Scholars of Theology and Science:
According to the famous scientist Albert Einstein; “Science without
religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.” Francis Bacon, the famous
philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes you an
atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes you a believer in God. A
critical analysis reveals that most of Muslim scientists and scholars of
medieval period were also eminent scholars of Islam and theology. The earlier
Muslim scientific investigations were based on the inherent link between the
physical and the spiritual spheres, but they were informed by a process of
careful observation and reflection that investigated the physical universe.
Influence of Qur’an on Muslims Scientists:
The worldview of the Muslims scientists was inspired by the Qur’an and
they knew that: “Surely, In the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the
alternation of the night and the day, in the sailing of the ships through the
ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which Allah sends down from the
skies, with which He revives the earth after its death and spreads in it all
kinds of animals, in the change of the winds and the clouds between the sky and
the earth that are made subservient, there are signs for rational
people.”(Qur’an;2:164). “Indeed in the alternation of the night and the day and
what Allah has created in the heavens and the earth, there are signs for those
who are God fearing.”(Qur’an;10:6). They were aware that there was much more to
be discovered. They did not have the precise details of the solar and lunar
orbits but they knew that there was something extremely meaningful behind the
alternation of the day and the night and in the precise movements of the sun
and the moon as mentioned in Qur’an: One can still verify that those who
designed the dome and the minaret, knew how to transform space and silence into
a chanting remembrance that renews the nexus between God and those who respond
to His urgent invitation.
Famous Muslim Scientists and Scholars:
The traditional Islamic institutions of learning produced numerous
great theologians, philosophers, scholars and scientists. Their contributions
in various fields of knowledge indicate the level of scholarship base developed
among he Muslims one thousand years ago. Only few are being mentioned here:
Chemistry:
Jabir ibn Hayyan, Abu Musa (721-815), alchemist known as the “father
of chemistry.” He studied most branches of learning, including medicine. After
the ‘Abbasids defeated the Umayyads, Jabir became a court physician to the
‘Abbasid caliph Harun ar-Rashid. Jabir was a close friend of the sixth Shi’ite
imam, Ja’far ibn Muhammad, whom he gave credit for many of his scientific
ideas.
Mathematics, Algebra, Astronomy
& Geography:
Al-Khwarizmi (Algorizm) (770–840 C.E) was a researcher of mathematics,
algorithm, algebra, calculus, astronomy & geography. He compiled
astronomical tables, introduced Indian numerals (which became Arabic numerals),
formulated the oldest known trigonometric tables, and prepared a geographic
encyclopaedia in cooperation with 69 other scholars.
Physics, Philosophy, Medicine:
Ibn Ishaq Al-Kindi (Alkindus)
(800–873 C.E) was an intellectual of philosophy, physics, optics, medicine,
mathematics & metallurgy. Ali Ibn Rabban Al-Tabari(838–870 C.E) was a
scholar in medicine, mathematics, calligraphy & literature. Al-Razi
(Rhazes) (864– 930 C.E), a physical and scientist of medicine, ophthalmology,
smallpox, chemistry & astronomy.
Ar-Razi’s two most
significant medical works are the Kitab al-Mansuri, which became well known in
the West in Gerard of Cremona’s 12th-century Latin translation; and ‘Kitab al-hawi’, the “Comprehensive
Book”. Among his numerous minor medical treatises is the famed Treatise on the
Small Pox and Measles, which was translated into Latin, Byzantine Greek, and
various modern languages.
Al-Farabi (Al-Pharabius)
(870- 950 C.E) excelled in sociology, logic, philosophy, political science
& music. Abu Al-Qasim Al-Zahravi (Albucasis; 936 -1013 C.E) was an expert
in surgery & medicine known as the father of modern surgery.
Ibn Al-Haitham (Alhazen)
(965-1040 C.E); was the mathematician and physicist who made the first significant
contributions to optical theory since the time of Ptolemy (flourished 2nd
century). In his treatise on optics, translated into Latin in 1270 as Opticae
thesaurus Alhazeni libri vii, Alhazen published theories on refraction,
reflection, binocular vision, focusing with lenses, the rainbow, parabolic and
spherical mirrors, spherical aberration, atmospheric refraction, and the
apparent increase in size of planetary bodies near the Earth’s horizon. He was
first to give an accurate account of vision, correctly stating that light comes
from the object seen to the eye.
Abu Raihan Al-Biruni (973-1048 C.E);
was a Persian scholar and scientist, one of the most learned men of his age and
an outstanding intellectual figure. Al-Biruni’s most famous works are Athar al-baqiyah
(Chronology of Ancient Nations); at-Tafhim (“Elements of Astrology”); al-Qanun
al-Mas’udi (“The Mas’udi Canon”), a major work on astronomy, which he dedicated
to Sultan Mas’ud of Ghazna; Ta’rikh al-Hind (“A History of India”); and Kitab
as-Saydalah, a treatise on drugs used in medicine. In his works on astronomy,
he discussed with approval the theory of the Earth’s rotation on its axis and
made accurate calculations of latitude and longitude. He was the first one
to determine the circumference earth. In the filed of physics, he explained
natural springs by the laws of hydrostatics and determined with remarkable
accuracy the specific weight of 18 precious stones and metals. In his works on
geography, he advanced the daring view that the valley of the Indus had once been a sea
basin.
Ibn Sina (Avicenna,
981–1037 C.E); was a scientist of medicine, philosophy, mathematics &
astronomy. He was particularly noted for his contributions in the fields of
Aristotelian philosophy and medicine. He composed the Kitab ash-shifa` (“Book
of Healing”), a vast philosophical and scientific encyclopedia, and the Canon
of Medicine, which is among the most famous books in the history of medicine.
Ibn Hazm, (994-1064 C.E) was a
Muslim litterateur, historian, jurist, and theologian of Islamic Spain. One of
the leading exponents of the Zahiri (literalist) school of jurisprudence, he
produced some 400 works, covering jurisprudence, logic, history, ethics,
comparative religion, and theology, and The Ring of the Dove, on the art of
love.
Al-Zarqali (Arzachel)
(1028-1087 C.E); an astronomer who invented astrolabe (an instrument used to
make astronomical measurements). Al-Ghazali (Algazel) (1058-1111 C.E); was a
scholar of sociology, theology & philosophy.
Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar) (1091-1161
C.E); was a scientist and expert in surgery & medicine.
Ibn Rushd (Averroes) (1128-
1198 C.E); excelled in philosophy, law, medicine, astronomy & theology.
Nasir Al-Din Al-Tusi (1201-1274 C.E);
was the scholar of astronomy and Non-Euclidean geometry.
Geber (flourished in
14th century Spain
They are the clearest expression of alchemical theory and the most
important set of laboratory directions to appear before the 16th century.
Accordingly, they were widely read and extremely influential in a field where
mysticism, secrecy, and obscurity were the usual rule. Geber’s rational
approach, however, did much to give alchemy a firm and respectable position in Europe . His practical
directions for laboratory procedures were so clear that it is obvious he was
familiar with many chemical operations. He described the purification of
chemical compounds, the preparation of acids (such as nitric and sulfuric), and
the construction and use of laboratory apparatus, especially furnaces. Geber’s
works on chemistry were not equaled in their field until the 16th century with
the appearance of the writings of the Italian chemist Vannoccio Biringuccio,
the German mineralogist Georgius Agricola, and the German alchemist Lazarus
Ercker.
Muhammad Ibn Abdullah (Ibn Battuta)
(1304-1369 C.E); was a world traveler, he traveled 75,000 mile voyage from Morocco China
Tipu, Sultan of Mysore India London
Turkish scientist Hazarfen Ahmet Celebi took off from Galata tower and
flew over the Bosphorus, two hundred years before a comparable development
elsewhere. Fifty years later Logari Hasan Celebi, another member of the
Celebi family, sent the first manned rocket into upper atmosphere, using 150
okka (about 300 pounds) of gunpowder as the firing fuel.
Contribution of Great Muslim Women
& Scholars:
Islam does not restrict acquisition of knowledge to men only, the
women are equally required to gain knowledge. Hence many eminent women have
contributed in different fields. Aishah as-Siddiqah (the one who affirms the
Truth), the favourite wife of Propeht Muhammad (peace be upon him), is regarded
as the best woman in Islam. Her life also substantiates that a woman can be a
scholar, exert influence over men and women and provide them with inspiration
and leadership. Her life is also an evidence of the fact that the same woman
can be totally feminine and be a source of pleasure, joy and comfort to her
husband. The example of Aishah in promoting education and in particular the
education of Muslim women in the laws and teachings of Islam is one which needs
to be followed. She is source of numerous Hadith and has been teaching eminent
scholars. Because of the strength of her personality, she was a leader in every
field in knowledge, in society and in politics.
Sukayna (also “Sakina),
the great granddaughter of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and daughter of
Imam Husain was the most brilliant most accomplished and virtuous women of her
time. She grew up to be an outspoken critic of the Umayyads. She became a
political activist, speaking against all kinds of tyranny and personal, social
and political iniquities and injustice. She was a fiercely independent woman.
She married more than once, and each time she stipulated assurance of her
personal autonomy, and the condition of monogamy on the prospective husband’s
part, in the marriage contract. She went about her business freely, attended
and addressed meetings, received men of letters, thinkers, and other notables
at her home, and debated issues with them. She was an exceedingly well-educated
woman who would take no nonsense from anyone howsoever high and mighty he or
she might be.
Um Adhah al-Adawiyyah (d. 83 AH),
reputable scholar and narrator of Hadith based on reports of Ali ibn Abu Talib
and Ayesha; Amrah bint Abd al-Rahman (d. 98 AH), one of the more prominent
students of Ayesha and a known legal scholar in Madina whose opinions overrode
those of other jurists of the time; Hafsa bint Sirin al-Ansariyyah (d. approx.
100 AH), also a legal scholar. Amah al-Wahid (d. 377 AH), noted jurist of the
Shafaii school and a mufti in Baghdad Baghdad Damascus Morocco noon prayer (Zuhr) and women after the afternoon
prayer (Asr).
A Muslim woman of the name of Rusa wrote a textbook on medicine, and another,
Ujliyyah bint al-Ijli (d. 944 CE) made instruments to be used by astronomers.
During the Mamluk period in Cairo
Rabi’a al-Adawiyya al-Basri (717 C.E), is honored as one of the
earliest and greatest sufis in Islam. Orphaned as a child, she was captured and
sold into slavery. But later her master let her go. She retreated into the
desert and gave herself to a life of worship and contemplation. She did not
marry, and to a man who wanted her hand she said: “I have become naught to self
and exist only through Him. I belong wholly to Him. You must ask my hand of
Him, not of me.” She preached unselfish love of God, meaning that one must love
Him for His own sake and not out of fear or hope of rewards. She had many
disciples, both men and women.
Zubaida (Amatal Aziz bint
Jafar), the favourite wife of Harun al-Rashid, the legendary Abassid
caliph. She came to be an exceedingly wealthy woman, a billionaire so to speak,
independently of her husband. Granddaughter of Al-Mansur, she grew up to be a
lady of dazzling beauty, articulate and charming of speech, and great courage.
Discerning and sharp, her wisdom and insightfulness inspired immediate
admiration and respect. In her middle years she moved out of the royal “harem”
and began living in a huge palace of her own. She owned properties all over the
empire which dozens of agents in her employ managed for her. A cultivated
woman, pious and well acquainted with the scriptures, Zubaida was also a
poetess and a patron of the arts and sciences. She allocated funds to invite
hundreds of men of letters, scientists, and thinkers from all over the empire
to locate and work in Baghdad
Arwa bint Ahmad bin Mohammad
al-Sulayhi (born 1048 C.E) was the ruling queen of Yemen for 70 years
(1067-1138 C.E), briefly, and that only technically, as a co-ruler with her two
husbands, but as the sole ruler for most of that time. She is still remembered
with a great deal of affection in Yemen Cairo India Gujarat which still thrives. She was also
a competent military strategist. At one point (1119 C.E) the Fatimid caliph
sent a general, Najib ad-Dowla, to take over Yemen Egypt India
Influence of Islamic Learning in Reviving
Western Civilization:
While Muslims were excellilng in the field of knowledge and learning
of science and technology, the conditions of Christendom at this period was
deplorable. Under Constantine Greece Rome Europe with its worship of relics and
the remains of saints. Science and literature were placed under the ban by
orthodox Christianity and they succeeded in emancipating themselves only when
Free Thought had broken down the barriers raised by orthodoxy against the
progress of the human mind.
Q. 3 Explain the relationship between science and
philosophy. (20)
The distinction between
philosophy and science is very slim, but there are distinctions nonetheless.
Many people assume that science and philosophy are contradictory concepts to
each other, but both subjects share a more positive relationship rather than an
animosity.
Science can be defined
as a study and understanding of natural phenomena. It is concerned with
empirical data, meaning data that can be observed, tested, and repeated. It is
systematic in nature, and there is a specific course of action used called the
scientific method. Science bases its explanation on the results of experiments,
objective evidence, and observable facts.
Science came from the
Latin word “scientia,” meaning “knowledge.” There are many branches or fields
of science. These branches can be classified under various headings: pure and
applied sciences, physical and life sciences, Earth and space sciences. Also
included in these classifications are exact and descriptive science.
Science started out as
a part of philosophy. It was then called natural philosophy, but science
emerged and deviated from philosophy in the 17th century as a separate study or
domain. Science involves objective types of questions. As a study, it tries to
find answers and prove them to be objective fact or truth. In its method, the
experiment creates certain hypotheses which can be proven or validated as fact.
In the same manner, hypotheses can also be wrong or falsified. By observing and
undertaking the experiment, science produces knowledge by observation.
Science’s main purpose is to extract the objective truth out of existing or
naturally occurring ideas.
Science’s
“predecessor,” philosophy, is a more difficult concept to define. It is broadly
defined as an activity that uses reason to explore issues in many areas. Its
application to many different fields makes it impossible to have a definite and
concrete definition.
Philosophy tries to
study and understand the fundamental nature of two things: the existence of man
and the relationship between the man and existence. It also has branches:
metaphysics, logic, politics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and specific
philosophy in the fields like the philosophy of language, history, the mind,
religion, and others. Philosophy comes from the Greek word “philosophia” which
translates as “love of wisdom.”
Philosophy is based on
reason. Its methods use logical argumentation. Philosophy uses arguments of
principles as basis for its explanation.
Philosophy entertains
both subjective and objective type of questions. It means that aside from
finding answers, it also resolves to generate questions. It raises question and
processes before finding out the answers. . Philosophy is mostly involved with
thinking and to create knowledge.
Summary:
1.Philosophy and
science are two studies and domains. Philosophy came first and became the basis
for science, formerly known as natural philosophy. Both studies have many
branches or fields of study and makes use reasoning, questioning and analysis.
The main difference is how they work and treat knowledge.
2.Science is concerned
with the natural phenomena while philosophy attempts to understand the nature
of man, existence and the relationship that exists between the two concepts.
3.Science came from a
Latin word (scientia), meanwhile, philosophy traces back to a Greek word
(philosophia).
4.Another common
element between the two studies is that they try to explain situations and find
answers. Philosophy does this by using logical argumentation while science uses
empirical data. Philosophy’s explanations are grounded in arguments of
principles while science tries to explain from experiment results, observable
facts and objective evidence.
5.Science is used for
instances that require empirical validation while philosophy is used for
situations where measurements and observations cannot be applied. Science also
takes answers and proves them as objective right or wrong.
6.Subjective and
objective questions are involved in philosophy while only some of objective
questions can be related in science. Philosophy also involves generating
questions aside from finding answers. Meanwhile, while science is only involved
in the latter activity.
7.Philosophy creates
knowledge by thinking. On the other hand, science does the same thing by
observing. 8.Science is also a defined study, in contrast to philosophy which
can be applied to many and extensive areas of discipline.
Figuratively speaking,
science is best likened to the human mind while philosophy is to the human
heart. Science, in general, seeks to understand natural phenomena. It is more
concerned on empirical evidences and testable hypotheses. By “empirical,” it
means “that which can be observed or experimented on.” By contrast, philosophy
is vaguer. Defining it in one concrete sentence may not define it entirely.
However, broadly speaking, philosophy is a school of thought that utilizes
reasoning to uncover issues concerning metaphysics, logic, epistemology,
language, ethics, aesthetics, and other disciplines.
So how can philosophy
help clarify or explain the issues at hand? As such, philosophy helps address
inquiries that couldn’t be answered simply by experimentation and observation.
It bases its explanations from the argument of principles. Science, using its
scientific methodology, is able to acquire more knowledge because of
experimentation and observation. It bases its explanation from facts that have
been observed. Philosophy uses questioning and a series of analyses through
logical arguments and dialectics. Thus, philosophy works by using reason-based
logical analysis. Science is different because it makes use of hypothesis
testing that is empirically based. This difference in process enables both to
work interdependently thereby updating each other of their individual
progresses.
Philosophy improves,
abandons, or objects to certain notions or philosophical positions such as
present-day concepts (i.e. utilitarianism) as no longer 100% identical compared
to their original sense when they were first conceptualized. It demonstrates
principles that must be correct. These principles are not really entirely
correct or true but it MUST be true. It even shows people how to act.
Similarly, science has theories that seem to have no clear end in terms of
improvisation or argumentation. A good example is the ever-growing arguments
surrounding Charles Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution.”
Q. 4 Give similarities and differences between
inductive and deductive reasoning. How far are they used in science education
with reference to Pakistan
Inductive
and deductive reasoning are often confused. This lesson introduces the concept
of reasoning and gives you tips and tricks to keeping inductive and deductive
reasoning straight.
Using
Reasoning
Andrew and Kevin are
studying for their upcoming speech final. They have to define inductive and
deductive reasoning and provide examples of each. Kevin says he has a great
example for deductive reasoning: 'Every time it hails, I get a dent in my car.
Every time it hails, my dad gets a dent in his car. Every time it hails, my
brother gets a dent in his car. Every time it hails, everyone will get a dent in
their cars.'
Andrew says that Kevin
does not have an example of deductive reasoning, but it is better as an example
for inductive reasoning. Who is right?
In this lesson, you
will learn about the concept of reasoning and how it is used in conjunction with
logic for inductive and deductive arguments.
Reasoning and Logic
First, let's discuss
the concept of reasoning. Reasoning is the action of
constructing thoughts into a valid argument. This is something you probably do
every day. When you make a decision, you are using reasoning, taking different
thoughts and making those thoughts into reasons why you should go with one
option over the other options available. When you construct an argument, that
argument will be either valid or invalid. A valid argument is
reasoning that is comprehensive on the foundation of logic or fact.
Now let's discuss
propositional logic. Inductive and deductive reasoning are both forms of
propositional logic. Propositional logic is the branch of
logic that studies ways of joining and/or modifying entire propositions,
statements or sentences to form more complicated propositions, statements or
sentences. For our purposes, this means that propositional logic uses a series
of facts and reasoning to develop a conclusion. Inductive and deductive
reasoning use propositional logic to develop valid arguments based on fact and
reasoning. Both types of reasoning have a premise and a conclusion. How each
type of reasoning gets to the conclusion is different.
Inductive Reasoning
Inductive reasoning is reasoning
where the premises support the conclusion. The conclusion is the hypothesis, or
probable. This means that the conclusion is the part of reasoning that
inductive reasoning is trying to prove. Inductive reasoning is also referred to
as 'cause and effect reasoning' or 'bottom-up reasoning' because it seeks to
prove a conclusion first. This is usually derived from specific instances to
develop a general conclusion.
Kevin and Andrew are
now arguing about math. Kevin says that all big brothers are good at math.
Andrew is an only child, but he's pretty sure that this argument cannot be
valid.
Kevin makes a
conclusion based on the following premises: 'My older brother is good at math.
My friend's older brother is good at math. My neighbor's big brother is a math
tutor. Therefore, all older brothers are good at math.'
You've probably heard
people use this type of reasoning in life. We know this can't be true. You
probably know that being an older brother doesn't inherently make you good at
math. What Kevin has done is made a generalized conclusion: all older brothers
are good at math based on three premises of specific instances: Mine, my
friend's and my neighbor's older brother are all good at math. These specific
instances are not representative of the entire population of older brothers.
Because inductive reasoning is based on specific instances, it can often
produce weak and invalid arguments.
You can remember
inductive reasoning like this: inductive reasoning is bottom-up reasoning; it
starts with a probable conclusion and induces premises.
The process of thinking about
something, in a rational manner, so as to draw valid conclusions, is known as
Reasoning. It is a daily activity that we use to make decisions, which involves
the construction of thoughts and converting them into a proposition to give
reasons on why we have opted for a particular alternative over the
other.Reasoning (logic) can take two forms – inductive reasoning or deductive
reasoning. The inductive
reasoning follows a particular flow or behaviour so as to
make inferences
Conversely, deductive reasoning uses
available information, facts or premises to arrive at a conclusion. These
two logics are exactly opposite to each other. Still, they are often juxtaposed
due to lack of adequate information. In this article, we are going to tell you
the basic differences between inductive and deductive reasoning, which will
help you to understand them better.
Comparison Chart
BASIS FOR COMPARISON
|
INDUCTIVE REASONING
|
DEDUCTIVE REASONING
|
Meaning
|
Inductive
Reasoning connotes the argument in which the premises give reasons in support
of the probable truth of the conjecture.
|
Deductive
reasoning is the fundamental form of valid reasoning, wherein the premises
give guarantee of the truth of conjecture.
|
Approach
|
Bottom-up
approach
|
Top-down
approach
|
Starting
point
|
Conclusion
|
Premises
|
Based
on
|
Patterns
or trend
|
Facts,
truths and rules
|
Process
|
Observation
> Pattern > Tentative Hypothesis > Theory
|
Theory
> Hypothesis > Observation > Confirmation
|
Argument
|
May
or may not be strong.
|
May
or may not be valid.
|
Structure
|
Goes
from specific to general
|
Goes
from general to specific
|
Draws
inferences with
|
Certainity
|
Probability
|
In research, inductive reasoning
alludes to the logical process, in which specific instances or situations are
observed or analysed to establish general principles. In this process, the
multiple propositions are believed to provide strong evidence, for the truth of
the conclusion. It is used to develop an understanding, on the basis of
observing regularities, to ascertain how something works.
These are uncertain arguments;
that describes the extent to which the conclusions drawn on the basis of
premises, are credible.
In inductive reasoning, there are
certain possibilities that the conclusion drawn can be false, even if the all
the assumptions are true. The reasoning vests on experience and observations
that support the apparent truth of the conclusion. Further, the argument can be
strong or weak, as it only describes the likelihood of the inference, to be
true.
Definition of Deductive Reasoning
Deductive Reasoning means a form
of logic in which specific inferences are drawn from multiple premises (general
statements). It establishes the relationship between the proposition and
conclusion. When all the proposed statements are true, then the rules of
deduction are applied and the result obtained is inevitably true.
Deductive logic is based on the
fundamental law of reasoning, i.e. if X then Y. It implies the direct
application of available information or facts, to come up with new information
or facts. In this, the researcher takes into account a theory and generates a
hypothesis, which can be tested, after that the observation are recorded, which
leads to particular data, which is nothing but the confirmation of validity.
Key Differences between Inductive and Deductive
Reasoning
The points provided below, clarifies the difference between inductive
and deductive reasoning in detail:
1. The argument in which the
premises give reasons in support of the probable truth of the conjecture is
inductive reasoning. The elementary form of valid reasoning, wherein the
proposition provide the guarantee of the truth of conjecture, is deductive
reasoning.
2. While inductive reasoning
uses the bottom-up approach, deductive reasoning uses a top-down approach.
3. The initial point of
inductive reasoning is the conclusion. On the other hand, deductive reasoning
starts with premises.
4. The basis of inductive
reasoning is behaviour or pattern. Conversely, deductive reasoning depends on
facts and rules.
5. Inductive reasoning
begins with a small observation, that determines the pattern and develops a
theory by working on related issues and establish the hypothesis. In contrast,
deductive reasoning begins with a general statement, i.e. theory which is
turned to the hypothesis, and then some evidence or observations are examined
to reach the final conclusion.
6. In inductive reasoning,
the argument supporting the conclusion, may or may not be strong. On the
contrary, in deductive reasoning, the argument can be proved valid or invalid.
7. Inductive reasoning moves
from specific to general. Unlike, deductive reasoning moves from general to
particular.
8. In inductive reasoning,
the inferences drawn are probabilistic. As opposed, in deductive reasoning, the
generalisation made are necessarily true, if the premises are
correct.Conclusion
To sum up, inductive and deductive
reasoning are the two kinds of logic, which are used in the field of research
to develop the hypothesis, so as to arrive at a conclusion, on the basis of
information, which is believed to be true. Inductive reasoning considers events
for making the generalization. In contrast, deductive reasoning takes general
statements as a base to arrive at an particular conclusion.
Q. 5 Explain the concept of rationalism. How will
you apply this concept in your teaching? (20)
Since
the beginning of time, humans have wondered how to answer questions about the
world they live in - many people have even gone as far as to make answering
these questions their life's work. Sometimes, the most simple questions can be
difficult to answer, and sometimes the simplest answer makes the most sense.
How often do you think about life's biggest questions? Let's give it a try!
Rationalism as a philosophy
is defined as using reason and logic as the reliable basis for testing any
claims of truth, seeking objective knowledge about reality, making judgments
and drawing conclusions about it. Although rationalism must ultimately rely on
sense perceptions, but it must also couple sense perceptions with logic and
evidence. To be consistent with logic, the thought process of a rationalist
must be free from logical fallacies, catalogued in many introductory books on logic
or critical thinking. There is no place for personal bias or emotion in
rationalism, although emotion and rationalism are not mutually exclusive, each
has its place. More on this later.
Freethinking, which is sometimes
confused with rationalism, is defined as the free forming of views about
reality independent of authority or dogma, be it from a divine or human source.
If we stick to the strict definitions, then freethinking is not synonymous with
rationalism. One need not be strictly rational to be a freethinker. One is
allowed the leeway to believe or form any opinion, not necessarily rational
(essentially "think as you like"), as long as it is not influenced by
existing religious, cultural or traditional dogma or authority. A postmodernist
(Read intellectual anarchist) may claim to be a freethinker according to this
non-restrictive definition. But rationalism is much more restrictive. It
enforces logic and evidence as the guiding principle in thinking and forming
opinions and cognition. So although rationalism invariably leads to
freethinking, but freethinking does not necessarily imply rationalism,
since freethinking may include irrational views, beliefs and personal bias.
Strict mental
discipline
Rationalism as a
philosophy demands some strict mental discipline that many find hard to
implement in their thoughts and actions. Many may not even be aware that they
are not being strictly rational. The reason for this is that some mistakenly
associate rationalism with certain ideals and outlook that do not necessarily
follow from rationalism. Rationalism as a philosophy inevitably leads to
scientific method through logic and critical thinking. Therefore a rationalist
cannot subscribe a priori to any ideology, political or ideological, nor can a
rationalist make statement of truth that is not a strict proposition. So a
rationalist cannot claim to be a strict atheist, i.e cannot assert that
"God does not exist", since God is not a logically well-defined and
meaningful concept, all definitions of God in any religious context runs into
contradictions and logical inconsistency. So the existence or
non-existence of God are both logically meaningless to a rationalist.
Rationalism is ruthless, it does not need to pamper to one's
emotional need or wishes, or care about political correctness.. In
personal life, that means a rationalist has to acknowledge and be critical of
the unpleasant facts, if necessary, about one's near and dear ones, if evidence
so suggests. Being able to separate facts from personal biases is an essential
hallmark of rationalism. By the same token, a rationalist has to acknowledge,
and criticize , if need be, the shortcomings of the race, religion or language
he/she belongs to, in a detached way, free from personal bias, as well as
acknowledge the superiority of another race, religion in a certain aspect, if
objective evidence suggests so. Rationalism also does not imply making an a
priori assumption that all bad or wrongs are equal, just because political
correctness says so. Rationalism demands doing the required homework to
quantify and recognize shades in right and wrong in morality and shades of good
and bad in attributes by some objective criteria when applicable. This requires
intellectual courage and integrity, as it can be potentially incur one the
scorn of the majority, for whom the priority is loyalty, pride, patriotism etc.
But rationalism does not recognize such mental constructs or sets such
priority. It only cares for logic and evidence.
Rationalism does not allow taking a stand just because it is
politically correct or popular. Many
intellectuals associate the terms liberal, progressive etc with
rationalism/freethinking. But liberal, progressive etc are usually understood
and judged in the context of which stand one takes vis a vis certain issues,
e.g pro-choice in abortion, leftist ideology ij politics, nurturist stand in
the nature/nurture debate, a puritanic belief that all bads are equal (i.e
cultural and moral relativism) etc. But rationalism does not require one to
adopt such positions, and in fact in certain issues,\ may lead to the opposite
stand by scientific evidence and logic. I will not dwell at length on the
specifics of those scientific evidences in all such cases as it is a topic on
its own and I am only interested on the general aspects of rationalism in this
essay. A small example may help to illustrate rationalistic approach to an
issue. IF we adopt the axiom that ending a "life" is morally wrong,
THEN the act of abortion by definition will be morally wrong,
since biology tells us that a fetus has life of its own. There is no value
judgement involved, that was a conclusion derived from purely logical
inference. (Notice the IF.. THEN.. construct). Whether we should adopt
"ending life is morally wrong" as an axiom of course is not dictated
by rationalism. But in fact we can derive that axiom from rationalism if we
adopt another axiom as more fundamental, for example the axiom that we should
do whatever is needed to increases the odds for the survival of human species. In
that case rational thinking using evolutionary biology tells us that IF we
adopt the precept "ending life is morally wrong", THEN it increases
the odds for the survival of human species (Again notice the IF.. THEN..
contruct). Whether we should consider "increasing the odds of the survival
of human species" as a moral imperative is of course beyond rationalism.
This is an intuitive moral axiom. This example clearly shows that rationalism
does have a role in formulating moral precpets, barring the mosr primitive
moral axioms. Even humanism, is not strictly derived from rationalism. Humanism
follows from rationalism if the postulate "we should put priority on the
welfare of maximum number of humans irrespective of race, color, creed,
ethnicity etc." is added to rationalism. It must be noted that all
religions and dogmas claim human welfare as their goal as well. But what
differentiates their view of humanism from rational humanism is that for them,
that goal is claimed to be achievable only through the implementation of their
dogma. So dogma comes first for them. Not only that, the priority for welfare
in most religions and dogmas is reserved for their followers. But rational
humanism does not make that distinction. Once humanism is arrived through
rationalism, the notions of democracy and secularism follows as corollary.
Asking Life's Biggest
Questions
Pop Quiz! What is the
meaning of life? Try and answer that question. Ready, set, go! Can you do it?
Chances are you may struggle a little bit with answering a question that deep.
But why? It's a very simple question…or is it?
What is a Philosophy?
Have
you ever stopped to wonder about some of life's other big questions? Well, some
very smart people have done this for hundreds of years. They call this the
study of philosophy. Philosophy is the study of ideas about knowledge
and human existence. In fact, the word philosophy comes from the Greek language
and means 'love of wisdom.' Way back in ancient Greece Greece
Rationalism Emerges
In the 17th Century,
people started exploring the idea of 'logic', meaning that every question can
be answered with a scientific or reasonable explanation. This led to an
important branch of philosophy called rationalism. Rationalism focuses
on using logic to solve life's BIG questions. Other branches of philosophy
use religious thought, emotions, or observations, but rationalism explores
philosophy differently. Rationalist philosophers believe that all questions can
be answered by thinking about them logically and using reasoning. Have you ever
heard someone say something like, 'Try and be rational!' This means, try to be
logical, or try do what makes the most sense. Since rational means logical, it
isn't a surprise how rationalism got its name, is it?
People who study
rationalism constantly ponder the meaning of some of the most basic questions
about human life and try to find the most logical explanation. For example:
'What is love?', 'What does it mean to be good or bad?', and 'Where do the
stars come from?' Those are some tricky questions! So how do you explain it?
Well, over many, many, (many) years, humans have wondered how we can answer
life's mysteries. Where do you think all of our answers come
Let me now clarify what
rationalism is not or cannot It is a mistaken to believe that rationalism can
solve all problems in life, or prevent them. It cannot. The fact it cannot is
because the truth in many situation in life is not always known in advance for
one to make the right decision. Rationalism is limited by the knowledge or
truth that is needed in making an informed decision to solve or prevent a
problem. In an indeterminstic situation intuitive guesses and judgement is
inevitable.
And the intuition of
rational person is not guaranteed to be right. So in those situations in life
where there are unknowns and uncertainties, intuitive guesswork cannot be
avoided. Rationalism may offer some guidelines in making the best guesses, but
it cannot offer a guarantee for success. For example, rationalism cannot
guarantee one will make the right choice in marriage or relationship.
Rationalism cannot prevent one from making mistakes in life. Gamble in life
cannot be totally averted through rationalism. Risk cannot be either. More
generally speaking, from an utilitarian point of view, rationalism is no
guarantee to material success in individual life. Rationalism is a principle
based on logic and evidence. In an imperfect world, that is not always the sure
route to material success. Just like honesty is not. But the value of
rationalism goes beyond personal gains or interests. It's value lies in the
collective imnprovement of the quality of human life by following rationalistic
approach. COnsider the cost human society has paid and is paying in terms of
dollars and man hours for believing in dogmas and faiths that have no logic or
evodence as its basis.
How much time and
resources are being spent towards relgiouis rituals, how much suffering and
persecution has enforcement of some cruelst relgious dogmas brought to many
decent humans? If majority of a society adopt rationalism as their personal
philosophy, then such wastage and social evils could be abolished or minimized.
Society would prosper faster then. A common thinking is that morality is beyond
rationalism. that is a mistaken view. Although the moral axioms at the bottom
of a moral system may have to be assumed arbitrarily based on intuition, once
the axioms are accepted, further moral precepts based on those axioms can
certainly be rationally analyzed or developed. Rationalism is the product of
human mind. So is morality. There is no apriori cause for them to be not
connected. In the ultimate analysis since it is the laws of nature that has
created human brain and thus rationalism, so it should be in principle possible
to formulate a moral system based on the same laws of nature via rationalism.
It may have to be an evolutionary process.
0 comments:
Post a Comment