6. To what extent is the knowledge we produce determined by the methodologies we use?

Discuss with reference to history and one other area of knowledge.

Session: May 2023

Word Count: 1551

 1

In the pursuit of knowledge, we must first attempt to conceptualize the nature of the

knowledge we seek in its absolute or perfect expression. In other words, we must conceptualize

its absolute truth. Absolute truth refers to a truth that is all-encompassing, reliable, and incapable

of being expanded upon, changed, or refuted. The nature of absolute truth varies from discipline

to discipline but exists across all disciplines. Absolute truth indicates a truth established by a

complete collection and accurate interpretation of irrefutable facts that elucidate the truth beyond

all skepticism. All that said, absolute truth is likely impossible to reach; due to our technological

limitations we lack access to all of the facts, and we understand the facts that we do have to an

insufficient degree. In addition, there will always be innovations and discoveries setting forth

previously unknown facts that necessitate a reevaluation and revision of what, up until then, was

thought to be resolved. With this qualification in mind, it is still a valuable exercise to evaluate

the extent to which the available facts allow us to pursue the complete and perfect knowledge we

seek and determine the nature of that pursuit. This determination helps to cater our search for

facts in a particular area of knowledge. For example, absolute truth in science relies on

qualitatively different facts than those used to establish an absolute truth in history. This

qualitative difference imposes different methodologies with respect to how we search for, and

collect, necessary facts. To quote Galileo Galilei, “measure what is measurable and make

measurable what is not so.” This concept refers to a methodology best used when seeking

absolute truth in the sciences. Any truth in math or science asserted to be absolute would

necessarily be measurable. Galileo’s work on the heliocentric model of the solar system is an

excellent example. However, an empirical methodology that works in the natural sciences and

mathematics will often be inadequate as a means of discovering the absolute truth about a

historical event or person. In history, the absolute truth is often underpinned by facts that take a
 2

much different form than facts in science, most notably facts that defy measurement. Thus there

exists a dichotomy in the pursuit of knowledge in these different areas; on one side an empirical

methodology and on the other a theoretical methodology (theoretical in the sense that the

methods of discovering absolute truth take non numerical facts and logically extrapolate them to

form an explanatory framework that convincingly describes what must have happened).

The ideal place to discuss an empirical methodology is the natural sciences. It is fruitful

to begin with an anecdote that succinctly illustrates the principles of empirical methodology in

the pursuit of knowledge. Physics is fundamentally a discovered knowledge. Discovered

knowledge means that the principles that define the absolute truth of physics exist whether or not

we know about them. Gravity was accelerating objects on earth at 9.8 ms2 long before the

derivation of that value. All principles of physics are true regardless of whether or not they can

be precisely defined. Thus, physics is, by nature, a foundational knowledge, meaning that all

understanding builds off of more basic, preceding knowledge. For example, observation and

measurement allows for the derivation of acceleration due to gravity, leading to an understanding

of the behavior of bodies in free fall, thus facilitating the computation of the behavior of objects

in parabolic flight. In other words, physics is cumulative, i.e., the foundational elements must be

provable for any subsequent understanding to be reliable. Without a foundation in truth, it is

impossible to progress toward more complex and illuminating physics. This principle holds for

all the natural sciences. In chemistry for instance, without a fundamental comprehension of the

composition of the atom, it is impossible to understand vast portions of the natural world. As our

understanding of the atom increased our understanding of the world as a whole also increased. In

nearly all cases, new understanding emerges from prior understanding, meaning that to progress
 3

it is necessary to build on a foundation of understood elements. Without such understanding, we

lack the foundation required to pursue further knowledge. This foundation-based methodology is

effective in the natural sciences because it ensures that all elements are clearly and accurately

delineated before the next steps are taken in the pursuit of knowledge. This process is necessary

in order to progress toward an absolute truth in the natural sciences.

Galileo’s efforts to prove the heliocentric model of the solar system illustrate the value of

empirical methodology in the pursuit of knowledge in the field of natural sciences. Two essential

elements in Galileo’s development of his theorems are his use of the telescope and the smoked

dimming lens. In his “Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences,” Galileo explains why

observation of the sun is essential in determining the true operation of the solar system. To

perform such observations he needed to tint the lens of his telescope. To do this, he held his

lenses over an open flame to tint them with charcoal, allowing him to observe the sun effectively

without damaging his eyes.1 Galileo’s experimentation and innovation with his telescope allowed

him to measure and analyze the heavens leading to the discovery of astronomical phenomena

previously shrouded by technological limitations. He was pursuing this area of knowledge

empirically as is requisite in the natural sciences; absolute truth in the natural sciences is

fundamentally empirical. This means that to discover the absolute truth, all relevant aspects of

physical life need to be measured accurately. Referring back to the previously articulated

dichotomy between empiricism and theoreticism, had Galileo pursued his understanding of the

solar system with a theoretical methodology, his conclusions would have been false. As

1
Galilei, Galileo, "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems - Ptolemaic & Copernican" Translated by
Stillman Drake. University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA, 1967
 4

evidenced by the erroneous geocentric model of the solar system espoused by the Catholic

Church at the time of Galileo, pursuing knowledge in the realm of natural sciences with a

theoretical methodology is unlikely to lead to truth. Without the correct methodology, progress

cannot be made toward absolute truth.

This principle of knowledge acquisition is very well supported in science but becomes

complicated in other, less empirical, areas of knowledge, like history. The Muqaddimah is a

historical piece written by Ibn Khaldun in the 14th century.2 Intended to serve as a prologue for a

more expansive set of works (“Muqaddimah” means “introduction” in Arabic), the purpose of

The Muqaddimah is to provide a sociological evaluation of the Middle East. The analysis

primarily focuses on the sociological context that governs decision-making among the tribal

groups of the Middle East. Khaldun concludes that humans are predisposed to endeavor to form

close relationships with those with whom they share some connection. Khaldun comes to these

conclusions through a theoretical methodology. His analysis of the peoples he studies is

observational but not empirical.3 A scientist would make observations, represent them

empirically, and extrapolate those observations to form an understanding of the topic. On the

other hand, a historian like Khaldun takes his observations and extrapolates them logically and

theoretically to describe the world around him. Nearly all pursuit of knowledge requires the

extrapolation of observed truths. What differentiates the two methodologies are the truths

considered and how they are extrapolated. Extrapolating truths with an improper methodology or

2
Ibn Khaldun, “The Muqaddimah - An Introduction to History: The Classic Islamic History of the World”
3
Ibn Khaldun, “The Muqaddimah”
 5

extrapolating truths that do not logically lend themselves to extrapolation leads to incorrect

conclusions.

There is more nuance to this question than has been made clear thus far: the dichotomy

between empiricism and theoreticism is not as stark as has been suggested. By speaking in

absolutes, the differentiation between the methodologies has been made clear at the expense of

some nuance. What makes an investigational method effective is how well the nature of the

information it discovers reflects the nature of the absolute truth in the targeted area of knowledge.

This has been thoroughly explored in regard to the natural sciences but less so with respect to

history. While history was used as an example of an area of knowledge where theoreticism is

valuable, the absolute truth in History is certainly not entirely theoretical. At some level history

is empirical: the Battle of Hastings did happen October 14th in 1066, Harold Godwinson was

indeed defeated, and William the Bastard did become William the Conqueror. Such facts are

indisputably true and are essential in the pursuit of absolute truth about the Battle of Hastings.

Thus, in the pursuit of historical knowledge, both empirical and theoretical-based methods are

used to aggregate facts that can be extrapolated to form principles that combine to create new

knowledge in the pursuit of absolute truth. In history, both empirical and theoretical

methodologies are essential. In the natural sciences, on the other hand, theoretical knowledge has

no place as a component of absolute truth (again, theoretical meaning the antonym to empirical:

not based on numbers). At its most basic, in the pursuit of absolute truth, the value of an

empirical methodology depends on the extent to which the absolute truth in question is

quantitative. In keeping with that principle, theoretical methodology is useful in discovering

knowledge only so far as the absolute truth in question is fundamentally non numerical.
 6

Works Cited:

Galilei, Galileo, "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems - Ptolemaic & Copernican"

Translated by Stillman Drake. University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA, 1967

Ibn Khaldun, "The Muqaddimah - An Introduction to History: The Classic Islamic History of the

World" Translated by Franz Rosenthal. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1967