The Scientific Method Is Based Upon Affirming the Consequent
When it comes to the Philosophy of Science, Science, Personality Theory, Psychology, and the Scientific Method, I discovered that studying and learning the difference between affirming the consequent and negating the consequent is the most interesting and most useful concept that one can study and learn about. It is the concept that paid the most dividends in the end. All of the Psychologists and Personality Theorists turn to Joseph Rychlak for this information because he pioneered Humanism, and he was twice a president of the APA’s division of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology.
I used to be a practitioner and promoter of Scientism – the philosophical belief that Science and the Scientific Method is the only way to find and know the truth.
The Scientific Method is a good way for coming to know the truth; but, most people do not realize that the Scientific Method is not a foolproof way of knowing the truth nor is it the best way for finding and knowing the truth.
Like me, most people are shocked when they first realize or are first taught that the Scientific Method is based upon a logic fallacy called “affirming the consequent”.
It took an honest philosopher and scientist to reveal this truth to me because many people like me have been brainwashed into believing that the Scientific Method is an infallible god. The people who are part of the religion called Scientism actually worship Science and treat Science as if it were God. These people pin all of their hope and faith on the Scientific Method, never once realizing that there is a fatal flaw at the heart of the Scientific Method which has the power to mess them up every time.
The Scientific Method typically runs through the following sequence in an attempt to arrive at the truth.
1) Form a HYPOTHESIS.
2) Select a Scientific Method or Scientific Methodology to TEST the hypothesis.
3) Run the Science Experiment; and then, Observe and Measure the RESULTS.
4) Find the BEST INTERPRETATION or the BEST EXPLANATION for the Scientific Data, the Scientific Evidence, the Scientific Observations, and the RESULTS of the Science Experiment.
The main flaw in the Scientific Method is found in the fourth and final step of the Scientific Method, where human error and human weakness comes into play by “affirming the consequent” or affirming the conclusion which the human wants the hypothesis to prove. In other words, the human being chooses the conclusion or the interpretation that he or she wants and wanted, in advance, never once realizing that there might in fact be a better explanation for the scientific data or a better interpretation of what the tested hypothesis and the chosen conclusion might in fact really truly mean. This happens all the time. Human beings make the data and the scientific evidence fit the conclusion they personally want, even though there are better explanations for the scientific data than the explanation or the interpretation which the person as the scientist has chosen to affirm.
One example: Materialism by definition is design and creation by physical matter, or Creation by Rocks. That’s what Materialism, Darwinism, and Naturalism reduce to – Creation by Chance, or Creation by Rocks, or Creation by Entropy. Millions of scientists across this world on a daily basis form hypotheses, run experiments and tests, get lots of results and scientific data, and then conclude that their hypotheses and scientific evidence have successfully proven Creation by Rocks, or Materialism, or Darwinism to be true – never once realizing that Intelligent Design, or Intelligent Manufacturing, or Creation by Psyche is in fact a far better, more logical, more realistic, and more parsimonious explanation for their scientific data than Creation by Rocks, Creation by Entropy, or Materialism.
Affirming or choosing Creation by Rocks or Creation by Entropy as one’s conclusion or as one’s interpretation of the scientific data is the perfect example of the “affirming the consequent” logic fallacy, which the Scientific Method employs every time that the Scientific Method is used to find and prove the “truth”. Entropy is death. Creation by Rocks or Creation by Death is the “affirming the consequent” logic fallacy in action. The fourth step of the Scientific Method is unavoidable – conclusions have to be drawn, but there’s no guarantee that one’s chosen conclusions are correct. Creation by Rocks or Creation by Entropy is an illogical and unsustainable conclusion; yet, it is THE CONCLUSION which millions of scientists choose on a daily basis.
Obviously, one’s chosen consequent or one’s chosen conclusion doesn’t have to be wrong or false. These same scientists could have chosen Creation by Intelligent Designers or Creation by Psyche as their conclusion and greatly increased their chances that their chosen conclusion might in fact be real, right, correct, and true; but, most of the scientists will not and have not chosen Creation by Intelligent Beings as their conclusion or their interpretation of the scientific data because these people don’t want to choose that conclusion even though it is in fact the more logical, more parsimonious, and most realistic conclusion that they could have chosen.
Entropy is death. Death cannot design and create.
Ultimate Cause or Psyche will always be a better consequent, or a better conclusion, or a better interpretation of the scientific data than Creation by Rocks or Creation by Entropy; but, Creation by Rocks or Creation by Death will typically be the consequent which the majority of the scientists and that all of the Materialists and Naturalists will choose to affirm, because these people want to, not because it’s true.
The thing we each need to realize in all of this is that it is always some kind of Psyche (or Ultimate Cause) who chooses the conclusion, or affirms the consequent, or chooses the interpretation of the scientific data that he or she personally desires the most; and, there is the flaw and the logic fallacy which is built into the Scientific Method right from the very beginning. A fallible psyche or fallible human being chooses the interpretation of the scientific data which he or she desires most never once realizing that there might in fact be another interpretation of the same scientific data which is in fact a better fit or a more realistic conclusion than the one they have chosen.
Design and Creation by Psyche or Creation by Intelligent Beings will always be a better interpretation of the scientific data than Creation by Rocks or Creation by Entropy; but, Creation by Rocks or Creation by Death has proven to be THE INTERPRETATION which the majority of the scientists have chosen to employ. Alas, the majority isn’t always right. The majority can be right, but they aren’t always right. And, therein is the flaw of the Scientific Method – the majority chooses the consequent or the conclusion they desire most and then unilaterally affirm that that consequent is true. It’s happening right now even as I write this and even as you read this. Someone right now is affirming Creation by Rocks or Materialism as their consequent or their conclusion.
We human beings are ever-learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth because we are constantly affirming consequents that can’t possibly be true. Design and Creation by Rocks, or Creation by Entropy – how could that ever possibly be true? It can’t. Entropy or death cannot create. But, Creation by Rocks or Creation by Entropy or Scientific Naturalism is nonetheless affirmed by scientists across this world on a daily basis because it is the conclusion or the consequent which they desire to affirm the most. Interesting, is it not?
Can you see how an understanding of philosophy, psychology, and logic can greatly improve our understanding of Science and the Scientific Method? The Scientific Method has a HUGE human element or psyche element driving it – a HUGE subjective element; and, human beings are known to make mistakes and are known to jump to conclusions. We humans often leap before we look. Creation by Rocks, or Creation by Death, or Materialism can’t possibly be true; yet, it is THE CONSEQUENT which most of the scientists choose to affirm for the duration of their careers.
This is why philosophers are wont to point out that for any given fact pattern which can be demonstrated or “discovered” empirically, an infinite number of theoretical explanations are possible. This is also why we say theories remain theories, even after they have been validated. All validating evidence can establish convincingly is the negation of a theoretical proposition. (Rychlak, A Philosophy of Science for Personality Theory, p. 81).
In other words, Science can be used to prove that Creation by Rocks is false by negating Creation by Rocks; but, Science cannot convincingly prove that Creation by Rocks or Creation by Entropy is true. To conclude that Darwinism, Materialism, or Naturalism has been proven true by Science and the Scientific Method requires an act of faith or a blind leap of faith, which millions of scientists are willing to take. But, taking that leap of faith doesn’t actually mean that these people have chosen the correct consequent or the right interpretation for their scientific data.
This is a good point at which to observe that the logic of empirical study is flawed – not fatally, but in a way that limits the certainty with which our explanation of empirically proven facts can be believed in. We never achieve logical necessity [certainty] in the proof garnered by a scientific experiment. This is because we always commit the logical error that Aristotle pointed out long ago, of affirming the consequent of an “If, then” line of argument. Another way of saying this is that the empirical findings act as a predicating meaning for our theory, but there are always going to be other theories that can take meaning from this data array as well. (Rychlak, Artificial Intelligence and Human Reason: A Teleological Critique, p. 33-34).
Drawing conclusions or interpreting the scientific data is an integral and essential part of the Scientific Method; but, this is also where the logic errors and the flaws are introduced into the process. I have observed that Creation by Rocks or Creation by Entropy is never the best explanation that can be given to scientific evidence because entropy or death cannot create; yet, Creation by Rocks or Scientific Naturalism is the explanation that is most-given to scientific evidence. Interesting, is it not?
I have also observed that there are infinitely better and more believable explanations for scientific evidence than Materialism, or Design and Creation by Rocks, or Creation by Entropy. Entropy is death. Death cannot design and create. Entropy or death can only destroy. Materialism, or Creation by Rocks, always provides a false interpretation or a false explanation to any data array or set of scientific evidence. That has been my observation once I finally started looking at the empirical evidence and the logic associated with the Scientific Method. Materialism, Naturalism, and Atheism are based upon a refusal to look at contradictory evidence and a refusal to look at any other possible explanation for the scientific evidence. Once I started looking at the logic and the evidence, it was easy to see that Materialism and Naturalism are fatally flawed. The Theory of Evolution is Creation by Entropy or Creation by Death after all. That’s NEVER going to work!
There’s a lot of money that can be made telling the Atheists and the Materialists exactly what they want to hear; but, it’s dishonest. Like Joseph Rychlak’s books, my books go largely unnoticed because I’m not telling the Materialists and the Atheists what they want to hear; but, I sleep well at night with a clear conscience knowing that I have finally found the truth that I have been searching for all of my life. This stuff is really cool, and it has set me free; but, most people will never see it because they don’t want to see it. Such is life.
The fallacy of affirming-the-consequent stipulates the fact that it will always be possible for some other explanation to account for any empirically observed fact pattern. This loss of certainty in validation is not fatal for the scientific method, of course. It has not prevented scientists from curing polio or putting people on the moon. It merely alerts us to the fact that some conceptualizer [psyche] always has to make a decision as to which fundamental grounding [or interpretation or explanation] will be used in the sequence of theory formation and testing. The grounds are never ‘out there’ in the hard data but ‘in here’ as assumptive frameworks. If we who theorize appreciate that we will never attain certainty in validating our theories, we will be in a better position to see that alternative groundings that explain such empirical evidence can be complementary. To complement is to fill out or make up for what is lacking in any theoretical understanding of a subject. (Rychlak, In Defense of Human Consciousness, pp. 18-19).
Notice that there must be a conceptualizer, psyche, interpreter, theorizer, observer, decider, chooser, and assumer behind every theoretical hypothesis, science experiment, and interpretation of the Scientific Method’s data, or the science experiment will never take place. The grounds for doing science take place ‘in here’ within our psyche. Contrary to the claims of the Darwinists and the Materialists, you can’t place the rocks or raw physical matter or entropy into the role of conceptualizer, psyche, theorizer, formal cause, final cause, or ultimate cause. The rocks won’t go there and can’t do that. Once again, logic and the Scientific Method have proven Materialism and Scientific Naturalism inadequate and false. The Scientific Method can definitely be used to prove things false, which has happened in the case of Materialism and Naturalism thousands of different ways. In fact, the falsification of Materialism and Naturalism is complementary, in that Naturalism and Materialism have been falsified thousands of different ways and the falsification of one falsifies the other. We have our fill of evidence demonstrating and proving what is lacking or false in Naturalism and Materialism. In fact, ALL of the evidence that we have on hand as a race falsifies Materialism, Naturalism, and their derivatives; whereas, there will NEVER be any evidence or proof demonstrating and proving that they are correct and true.
Science can only work through a kind of negating procedure of falsifying claims put to nature by the theorist in question. As scientists, says Popper, we never really verify things but continually falsify – or fail to falsify – claims [theories, hypotheses, etc.] expressed by some investigator [recognizing, of course, that serendipitous findings occur as well]. This is why the scientist always restates his hypothesis into the null form. Ultimately the reason we must falsify has to do with the logical fallacy of ‘affirming the consequent’ of an ‘If [antecedent] . . . then [consequent] . . .’ proposition. We like to think our theory has necessarily been verified, but Popper teaches us that it has not. There will always be, in principle, other ways of accounting for the observed data [the facts] than our preferred theory. (Rychlak, The Psychology of Rigorous Humanism, pp. 181-182).
There will always be other ways of accounting for the scientific data than our preferred conclusion – Naturalism or the Theory of Evolution.
Every scientist, I included, loves to make the claim that Science has proven different concepts to us. In the past, I have made the claim that the Scientific Method proved to me that God exists, that the Theory of Evolution is false, and that Quantum Nonlocality or the Spirit Realm does indeed exist. I have also made the claim that the Scientific Method has eliminated falsehoods while at the same time pointing me to the truth or proving the truth. I have been called on it many times, but I still stand behind it. What good is Science and the Scientific Method if it can’t be used to prove things? The Scientific Method can be used to prove things false. The Scientific Method, or observation and experience, falsifies the claims of Materialism, Naturalism, Darwinism, Nihilism, Behaviorism, Determinism, Physical Reductionism, Atheism, Classical Physics, and the Theory of Evolution. All of these things are based exclusively on entropy; and, entropy cannot design and create.
Typically, the way that the Scientific Method proves the truth is by eliminating all of the associated falsehoods. If you successfully eliminate everything that is false, then ONLY the truth will remain. The false is falsified by the truth; and, the truth is repeatedly and constantly experienced and observed.
The Scientific Method can be used thousands of different ways to falsify Materialism and Naturalism; and, it already has been used in that way trillions of different times. Each immaterial non-physical thought falsifies Materialism and Naturalism. The thoughts and memories that survive the death of our physical brain falsify Materialism and Naturalism. The Scientific Method (observation and experience) has in fact proven to me that Materialism and Naturalism are false by falsifying Materialism and Naturalism thousands of different ways. This also lends evidentiary support to the observation, claim, and the conclusion that something other than Materialism or Scientific Naturalism must of necessity be true. Intelligence, Psyche, Intelligent Design, Creation by Psyche, and Ultimate Cause are the opposite of Materialism. Since the Scientific Method has proven to me that Materialism and Naturalism are false, the Scientific Method greatly increases my chances that Intelligent Design, Psyche, and Ultimate Cause will be proven to be true.
In practice, though, I have observed that the false is repeatedly falsified by the truth; and, the truth is repeatedly and endlessly experienced and observed. Ultimately, it’s very easy to identify what is true and what is false because the falsehoods are NEVER experienced nor observed whereas the truths are constantly and repeatedly experienced and observed. The major premises or hidden assumptions of Materialism, Naturalism, Darwinism, and their derivatives have NEVER been experienced nor observed because they can’t be. Creation by Rocks, or Creation by Entropy, or Creation by Death is NEVER going to work.
The Scientific Method has proven to me that Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Entanglement, Action at a Distance, Syntropy, and Quantum Nonlocality are real and true. How? It’s because Quantum Mechanics has never been falsified in any of the science experiments that have been run on it. In every science experiment that has been performed on Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Entanglement, Quantum Mechanics or Spiritual Mechanics has been verified as true. Consequently, I feel safe in claiming that the Scientific Method has proven to me that Quantum Nonlocality or the Spirit Realm is real and truly exists, because Quantum Nonlocality by definition means spiritual, or non-local, or non-physical, and because Quantum Nonlocality has been repeatedly verified and proven true through scientific experimentation.
Finally, I know that Intelligence, or Psyche and Ultimate Cause, exist because they are obvious and axiomatic. We all KNOW that Psyche or Intelligent Beings can design and create anything they set their minds to at will because we have observed and experienced this Reality first-hand every single day of our lives. I don’t need the Scientific Method to prove to me that Intelligent Beings exist, because if you can read this, then you already KNOW that Intelligent Beings exist. And since Psyche or Ultimate Cause is synonymous with Intelligent Beings, whether looked at from a spiritual perspective or a materialistic perspective, I really don’t need the Scientific Method to prove to me that Psyche and Intelligent Beings exist because I already KNOW that they exist. The Scientific Method is unnecessary if you already KNOW the truth. Psyche or Intelligence or Quantum Non-Local Consciousness has been repeatedly experienced and observed by everyone living on this planet. It’s the better explanation for origins – much better than Creation by Entropy or Creation by Death.
KNOWING the truth trumps the Scientific Method and philosophical speculation every time. Also, since I am willing to accept Near-Death Experiences (NDEs), Shared-Death Experiences (SDEs), Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs), after-death Life Reviews, and other spiritual experiences into evidence, I KNOW that Psyche or Ultimate Cause is non-local, non-physical, and spiritual in nature and origin. I KNOW that psyche or our personality is the part of us that survives bodily death and brain death. Since many people have seen and talked with the Biblical God Jesus Christ during their NDEs and OBEs, I know that He exists as well; and, I don’t need the Scientific Method to try to convince me otherwise. I don’t need the Scientific Method for any of these things because I KNOW that they are real and true.
But, the failures and the inability of Materialism and Darwinism to account for the origin of the first physical genome and the first physical life form was in fact the first thing to prove to me scientifically that God must of necessity exist in order to have done all of the design, science, and creation that the Rocks, Materialism, Entropy, and Naturalism could never have done. So, in a very real sense, the Scientific Method and the falsification of Materialism and the Theory of Evolution proved to me that God must of necessity exist in order to do all of the different things that needed to be done which Materialism, the Rocks, Entropy, and the Theory of Evolution could never have done. Entropy is death. Death cannot design and create.
It’s really not 100% accurate to make the claim that Science and the Scientific Method will never be able to prove the truth, because through the scientific process of eliminating every falsehood, we eventually find ourselves landing upon the truth as a last resort or a final default; and then, we find ourselves staring at and going with something which is axiomatic law, obvious, and 100% true and can never be falsified, or proven false, or proven not to exist – something like Psyche, Intelligence, Intelligent Design, and Ultimate Cause which we simply KNOW exists. I exist; therefore, I AM; and, I KNOW IT.
When we design and carry out a research experiment, it is easy to confuse the concrete empirical findings with the activity or the process that supposedly brought these findings about or made them happen. The logic of experimentation gives rise to the following problem: for any observed fact pattern there are, in principle, infinitely many possible explanations. This follows from the necessity that, in conducting research, all scientists are constrained by the “affirming the consequent” fallacy. There will always be an alternative explanation possible for the observed fact pattern. (Rychlak, Logical Learning Theory: A Human Teleology and Its Empirical Support, pp. 3-4).
When the Naturalists and Materialists carry out their research experiments and choose to affirm Creation by Rocks or Materialism as their consequent, know that there are an infinite number of possible explanations for their science experiment and their scientific data, some of which might actually be true – such as using Intelligent Design, or Creation by Psyche, or Design and Creation by Intelligent Beings as the explanation for their science experiment and scientific data instead of using Creation by Rocks, Creation by Entropy, or Materialism as their explanation.
I have observed that Psyche, or Intelligence, or Ultimate Cause will always be a better explanation for research experiments and scientific evidence than Materialism, Creation by Death, or Creation by Rocks. Would you agree with that observation, or not? Whether you agree or not, I have observed that Psyche or Intelligence can do research experiments; whereas, the rocks and entropy cannot. Have you ever caught the rocks or entropy or death in the act of designing, creating, and running science experiments? NO! Consequently, science experiments done by psyche (or ultimate cause) are infinitely more plausible and believable than science experiments done by rocks, entropy, and death. That’s one of the things which the Scientific Method has taught me.
See how the Scientific Method and the Philosophy of Science can be used to get at the truth, often through a process of elimination? It’s not as direct nor as immediate as Knowing or Knowledge, but it does have its uses.
The Philosophy of Science opened my eyes to the strengths and weaknesses of the Scientific Method; and, it can do the same for you if you choose to let it do so.
Mark My Words
—
Source
BioPsychoSocial: Including Psyche or Light into our Theoretical Models
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0713NDHVW
References
Rychlak, J. F. (1981). A Philosophy of Science for Personality Theory (2nd ed.). Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company.
Rychlak, J. F. (1988). The Psychology of Rigorous Humanism (2nd ed.). New York: New York University Press.
Rychlak, J. F. (1991). Artificial Intelligence and Human Reason: A Teleological Critique. New York: Colombia University Press.
Rychlak, J. F. (1994). Logical Learning Theory: A Human Teleology and Its Empirical Support. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska University Press.
Rychlak, J. F. (1997). In Defense of Human Consciousness. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.