DISTINCTION BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

In researching my last post, titled “EVOLUTION OF THE SCIENCE OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT- TO WHAT END?” I came across two terms. The two terms are scientific method and scientific inquiry. The intent of this post is to make a distinction between the two terms. This post intends to find and share the difference between the two terms.

The two terms have a common adjective. The adjective is scientific. Scientific is that which relates to science. Science is, as indicated in my last post under reference in paragraph one, both a means and an end in itself.  A means as in how knowledge of the natural environment is acquired. An end as to the knowledge acquired through the means. But the both terms are means to the acquisition of knowledge of the natural environment.

While the terms share scientific as a common word, the additional words in the terms are different. I suppose prima facie this is where the distinction shows up. The two different additional words are method and inquiry. Hence scientific method and scientific inquiry, are both tools of search and research, for acquiring and accumulating scientific knowledge for the world, man, and the natural environment as a whole.

Now the distinction, prima facie. To get the distinction we must get the definitions of the two words aligned to the adjective scientific.

For the definition of the word method, the link https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/method says:

a procedure or process for attaining an object: such as a systematic procedure, technique, or mode of inquiry employed by or proper to a particular discipline or art

And for the definition of the word inquiry https://www.exploratorium.edu/education/ifi/inquiry says:

Inquiry is an approach to learning that involves a process of exploring the natural or material world, and that leads to asking questions, making discoveries, and testing those discoveries in the search for new understanding.

From the two definitions there are some common words. The common words are process and inquiry. In the first definition the word process, contextually implies a mode of inquiry. And in the definition of the word inquiry, inquiry means an approach to learning involving a certain process. Making the words method and inquiry interchangeable in that sense.

For me the distinction between the two definitions lies in the nature of the process. The process in the scientific method appears to be guided, and leads to a set target. On the other hand, the process in the scientific inquiry is exploratory and unfettered, and leads to discoveries. They both are means to one end. Knowledge- knowledge of the natural environment.

In the next section I should dilate on the subject of the scientific method, and in the process project its essence.    

ESSENCE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Under this section I extract from my previous post I have referred to in paragraph one of this post that which follows:

If the scientific method underpins and determines what science is, and science itself is evolvable and evolving, then the scientific method too is evolvable and evolving. As man continues to acquire material and physical knowledge, and wants to ultimately acquire all such knowledge through science, but has not acquired all such knowledge yet, science as the main engine for such knowledge search should continue to evolve. To evolve into and through posterity, because of the brevity of life of man. Suppose Albert Einstein, for example, were alive today, could you image the amount of knowledge and enlightenment man would have acquired? The scientific method used in the Mesopotamian civilization to acquire knowledge of the natural environment is not the same scientific method in use today. In the Mesopotamian civilization, for example, the supernatural was very much an integral part of the scientific process, while today the supernatural is of no consequence.

On the future of scientific method, I give you a take from Royal Society Publishing through https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2018.0145 as follows:

Our current society is characterized by an unprecedented ability to produce and store breathtaking amounts of data and, much more importantly, by the ability to navigate across them in such a way as to distil from them useful information, hence knowledge. This has now reached the point of spawning a separate discipline, so-called big data (BD), which has taken the scientific and business domains by storm. Like all technological revolutions, the import of BD goes far beyond the scientific realm, reaching down into deep philosophical and epistemological questions, not to mention societal ones. One of the most relevant is: Are we facing a new epoch in which the power of data renders obsolete the use of the scientific method as we have known it since Galileo?

What then is scientific method, which appears to becoming obsolete, yet still very much in use?

In answering that question I extract from an article by the Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica through the link https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method that which follows:

The scientific method is critical to the development of scientific theories, which explain empirical (experiential) laws in a scientifically rational manner. In a typical application of the scientific method, a researcher develops a hypothesis, tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments. The modified hypothesis is then retested, further modified, and tested again, until it becomes consistent with observed phenomena and testing outcomes. In this way, hypotheses serve as tools by which scientists gather data. From that data and the many different scientific investigations undertaken to explore hypotheses, scientists are able to develop broad general explanations, or scientific theories.

The scientific method explains itself by a step by step format. There are different forms of the step by step format. The format I present is sourced through the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

1) Define a question

2) Gather information and resources (observe)

3) Form an explanatory hypothesis

4) Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner

5) Analyze the data

6) Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

7) Publish results

8) Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

To what end is the scientific method? The scientific method is to eventually acquire scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge about the natural environment. When you relocate to a new neighborhood you naturally want to know about the new neighborhood. Indeed you need to know about the new neighborhood, so as to relate well with it, and fit properly into it. I suppose that is how man felt when for the first time he found himself in the natural environment.

Man needs scientific knowledge about the biotic and the abiotic that are the constituents of the natural environment. Man needs scientific knowledge about the intra activities within the biotic community. Man needs scientific knowledge about the intra activities within the abiotic community. Man needs scientific knowledge to manage and sustain the very mindbogglingly delicate balance holding the vast natural environment together. Man needs the scientific knowledge, which he is acquiring and accumulating, to keep the natural environment intact.                                                                             

That the natural environment sustains life, including the life of man, cannot be gainsaid. The air you breathe comes from the natural environment. The water you drink comes from the natural environment. The food you eat comes from the natural environment. Those are life-sustaining resources. Look around you. All the built environment or man-made environment was made from resources from the natural environment. This should tell you how vital the natural environment is to man himself. Are you not amazed at the sustained interconnectivity and interaction, within and without the biotic and abiotic communities inside the natural environment?  

It is not only man that vitally needs the natural environment, the entirety of the biotic and the abiotic do too. The activities within the natural environment must be such that the intactness of the natural environment is not compromised. A balance must be obtained, and sustained, amidst the activities within the entirety of the natural environment.

Ultimately, the goal of scientific knowledge acquired through scientific method/scientific inquiry, should be the management of the natural environment to effect such balance and intactness! 

ESSENCE OF THE SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

In this section I am going to attempt to give the essence of scientific inquiry, as I did to scientific method in the preceding section. It is a comparative stuff, is it not?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_scientific_inquiry Wikipedia looks at scientific inquiry thus:

Models of scientific inquiry have two functions: first, to provide a descriptive account of how scientific inquiry is carried out in practice, and second, to provide an explanatory account of why scientific inquiry succeeds as well as it appears to do in arriving at genuine knowledge.

The search for scientific knowledge ends far back into antiquity. At some point in the past, at least by the time of Aristotle, philosophers recognized that a fundamental distinction should be drawn between two kinds of scientific knowledge—roughly, knowledge that and knowledge why. It is one thing to know that each planet periodically reverses the direction of its motion with respect to the background of fixed stars; it is quite a different matter to know why. Knowledge of the former type is descriptive; knowledge of the latter type is explanatory. It is explanatory knowledge that provides scientific understanding of the world. (Salmon, 2006, pg. 3)[1]

The classical model of scientific inquiry derives from Aristotle, who distinguished the forms of approximate and exact reasoning, set out the threefold scheme of abductive, deductive, and inductive inference, and also treated the compound forms such as reasoning by analogy.

According to the foregoing, the classical model of scientific inquiry derives from Aristotle (a Greek philosopher) who made the distinction of approximate and exact reasoning in scientific inquiry, and put in place the threefold arrangement of abductive, deductive and inductive inference.

To get explanation for the reasoning tools of abduction, deduction and induction let us turn to Merriam Webster Dictionary through https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/deduction-vs-induction-vs-abduction:

Deductive Reasoning

Deduction is generally defined as "the deriving of a conclusion by reasoning." Its specific meaning in logic is "inference in which the conclusion about particulars follows necessarily from general or universal premises." Simply put, deduction—or the process of deducing—is the formation of a conclusion based on generally accepted statements or facts. It occurs when you are planning out trips, for instance. Say you have a 10 o'clock appointment with the dentist and you know that it takes 30 minutes to drive from your house to the dentist's. From those two facts, you deduce that you will have to leave your house at 9:30, at the latest, to be at the dentist's on time.

Deductive reasoning always follows necessarily from general or universal premises. If a sandwich is defined as "two or more slices of bread or a split roll having a filling in between," and a hot dog is defined as "a frankfurter; especially : a frankfurter heated and served in a long split roll" then one must deduce that any hot dog served in a split roll is a sandwich.

Inductive Reasoning

Whereas in deduction the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed by the truth of the statements or facts considered (the hot dog is served in a split roll and a split roll with a filling in the middle is a sandwich), induction is a method of reasoning involving an element of probability. In logic, induction refers specifically to "inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances." In other words, it means forming a generalization based on what is known or observed. For example, at lunch you observe 4 of your 6 coworkers ordering the same sandwich. From your observation, you then induce that the sandwich is probably good—and you decide to try it yourself. Induction is at play here since your reasoning is based on an observation of a small group, as opposed to universal premises.

Abductive Reasoning

The third method of reasoning, abduction, is defined as "a syllogism in which the major premise is evident but the minor premise and therefore the conclusion only probable." Basically, it involves forming a conclusion from the information that is known. A familiar example of abduction is a detective's identification of a criminal by piecing together evidence at a crime scene. In an everyday scenario, you may be puzzled by a half-eaten sandwich on the kitchen counter. Abduction will lead you to the best explanation. Your reasoning might be that your teenage son made the sandwich and then saw that he was late for work. In a rush, he put the sandwich on the counter and left.

From the same source a further explanation is given from the perspective of the root words as follows: If you have trouble differentiating deduction, induction, and abduction, thinking about their roots might help. All three words are based on Latin ducere, meaning "to lead." The prefix de- means "from," and deduction derives from generally accepted statements or facts. The prefix in- means "to" or "toward," and induction leads you to a generalization. The prefix ab- means "away," and you take away the best explanation in abduction.

Let me chip in this significant piece on abduction from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/ as follows:

In the philosophical literature, the term “abduction” is used in two related but different senses. In both senses, the term refers to some form of explanatory reasoning. However, in the historically first sense, it refers to the place of explanatory reasoning in generating hypotheses, while in the sense in which it is used most frequently in the modern literature it refers to the place of explanatory reasoning in justifying hypotheses. In the latter sense, abduction is also often called “Inference to the Best Explanation.”

Under this section, to my mind, what is revealed is that scientific inquiry places emphasis on the substance of search for scientific knowledge. As against form in the scientific method. Scientific inquiry is concerned with nature of scientific knowledge which is the end of the means in both the scientific method and scientific inquiry if they are to be considered separately. Scientific inquiry shows the differentiation in scientific knowledge as knowledge that and knowledge why. Knowledge that is descriptive, while knowledge why is explanatory. Apart from the differentiation in scientific knowledge, scientific inquiry makes differentiation in reasoning too. As a result there is approximate and exact reasoning. And the tools of reasoning are abduction, deduction and induction. So in this sense the scientific inquiry comes into play in the scientific method steps, particularly in hypothesis formulation.  

In the next section the post will do a comparative analysis of the scientific method and the scientific inquiry preparatory to making the distinction between the two of them.  

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Thus far I have hinted through the two terms and their meanings some similarities and differences. This section will look at them more closely by way of comparative analysis.

The term scientific method obviously signifies the means, way, path, steps, procedure, process etc. by which something scientific could be had. That something scientific, in this context, is the science of the natural environment or knowledge of the natural environment.

The term scientific inquiry signifies the questioning, investigation, probing, inquisition etc. of things scientific for answers.  In this context things scientific relate to science of the natural environment or knowledge of the natural environment. Scientific inquiry seeks to demystify the mysteries of the natural environment.

The scientific method serves as a guide for scientific inquiry through its step-by-step structure leading to acquisition of scientific knowledge or knowledge of the natural environment.

A critically important technique for determining scientific knowledge is reasoning which has been explained under the preceding section. This technique is provided by scientific inquiry. Reasoning has three elements. The elements are induction, deduction and abduction.

Scientific inquiry shows the kinds of scientific knowledge. There are knowledge that and knowledge why. Knowledge that is descriptive while knowledge why is explanatory.

Scientific method provides the principle of method. Scientific inquiry provides the principle of inquiry.

DISTINCTION

The distinction between scientific method and scientific inquiry is subtle, practically speaking.

Scientific method has been designed, crafted and operated to get scientific knowledge- knowledge of the natural environment. Scientific inquiry too has been designed, arranged and operated to acquire scientific knowledge- knowledge of the natural environment.

Scientific method is the frame through which scientific inquiry is applied.

The application of scientific inquiry gives functionality to scientific method as a framework.

Scientific inquiry gives scientific method inspiration. It is through the framework of scientific method that the principle of reasoning is applied.

Hypothesis is one of the steps in the scientific method structure, an important step at that. Through scientific inquiry’s principle of reasoning, explanatory reasoning, a hypothesis can be generated, and a hypothesis justified.

Scientific method gives direction to scientific inquiry when applied through its steps.

Comparing them to the human being, the scientific method can be liken to the body, while the scientific inquiry can be liken to the spirit.

Comparing them to the automobile, the scientific method can be liken to the body of the automobile, while the scientific inquiry can be liken to fuel.

CONCLUSION

Both the scientific method and the scientific inquiry are means to an end. The both of them are means to the acquisition of scientific knowledge- knowledge of the natural environment. Yet they are not the same, at least, theoretically speaking.

The scientific method provides the step-by-step framework for the scientific inquiry for its functionality. On the other hand, the scientific inquiry provides the underlying principles for the scientific method to function as a step-by-step framework.

In theory, and on paper, if the scientific method is to be looked at on its own, and by its own, it may be said that it is restrictive, as it puts a researcher in a straitjacket, as it were. On the other hand, the scientific inquiry as an investigator in essence, on its own, is unrestricted compared to functioning within the step- by-step structure of the scientific method.

Finally, the scientific method and the scientific inquiry are both means to an end. They both seek to acquire scientific knowledge- knowledge of the natural environment. However, scientific method is a step-by-step structure to that end which is knowledge, while scientific inquiry is an investigative principled mode to that end which is knowledge- knowledge of the natural environment. 

Reference:

https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/scientific-inquiry?page=2&phrase=scientific%20inquiry&sort=mostpopular