Aristotle is generally considered as the “first scientist” because of his inductive method which is started from collecting empirical evidence; then drawing generalized conclusions. Sounds familiar? As an influential pioneer of the method of scientific discovery, Aristotle’s way of thinking profoundly shaped how to do research and how we report our scientific observations/discoveries. Open any issue of the top-tier scientific journal, you will notice the writing style of the article is unmistakenly trying to “generalize” one particular observation generated through the reductionism approaches into some sort of universal law. Much more appreciated by scientists, the inductive method is more logically sound than the deductive method; in which case, the logic is the only authority. If an argument is logically sound, it must be true.
Aristotle believes any pursuit of knowledge must be at least be of the validity of each step it takes, and this is what observance of the rules of syllogism secures. Aristotle’s definition of the syllogism is “an argument in which, certain things having been assumed; something other than these follows of necessity from their truth, without needing any term from outside.” As reasonable as it sounds, is Aristotle’s method indefensible? Are the premises being used to suggest a broader conclusion indeed true?
As we are conducting research based on a series of premises, it appears to be extremely daunting to even think about “what if the premise is wrong?” Should we step around the circle or just simply quit?
Two years ago during the Winter Break, I visited Washington D.C. Probably it is more than serendipity, an interesting “quote” came to me at Jefferson Memorial. It is well said! Facing the possible mist of the truth and fallacy, we believing in the ultimate comforting notion: we remain free to combat it. 🙂
