Scientific Principles:

Scientific Principles:

Scientific principles are those ‘objective principles’ that have been verified to be objectively accurate as per the results of the ‘objective verification’ with the help of the application of scientific methodology. ‘Objective principles’ may be proved to be ‘true’ or ‘false’ as a result of such objective verification. ‘Truth’ or ‘falsity’ does not affect the status of ‘objectivity’, of the objective principles in this way. Scientific principles are a sub-set of objective principles. Since ‘truth’ or ‘falsity’ does not affect the status of ‘objectivity’ in case of objective principles, so ‘truth’ or ‘falsity’ also cannot affect the status of objectivity in case of scientific principles. Thus theories of physical sciences are all objective because not only that they are ‘considered’ objectively true, but even if we doubt in the truth of these theories, still then these are ‘objective’ because these are ‘objectively verifiable’. So if I doubt in the truth of some scientific theory, it does not mean that I do not consider this theory ‘objective’. The only meaning is that I have doubt in the ‘objective accuracy’ of that scientific theory.

What is objective verifiability?

A principle or statement, if can be supported by an objective (i.e. independent – on which all persons, in case of principles, or at least persons to whom such statement is put – can agree) evidence – it means that the principle or statement is objectively verifiable.

Exclusive Nature of Scientific Principles:

In case of scientific principles, the series of events as are described by the principle would occur automatically in the presence of required objective conditions provided there is no difference between ‘objective truth’ and ‘real truth’. The performance of scientific principles can take place wherever required objective conditions can exist.

Principles of physical sciences cannot be violated. We can overcome certain principles of physical sciences but only through violating the underlying assumptions of that principle. For example, the physical principle is that within the range of the field of gravity of earth, objects fall towards the center of the earth. The underlying assumption here is that there is no upward positive net force operating on that object.

So we cannot overcome the principle unless first we violate the underlying assumptions of the principle. In this way, actually we have not violated the principle, we only have overcome the principle by violating the underlying assumptions of the principle. So actually, the principles of physical sciences are impossible to be violated.

Other objective rules, such as law, can be easily violated. People can violate civil laws and even can escape themselves from the consequences. Even if they have to face the consequences, still then after all, the so called ‘objective rules’ have been violated. Similarly we can use wrong grammar (i.e. another example of violation of ‘objective rules’) and we have to face no consequences.

Principles of physical sciences are objective for all people, for all societies and for all the world and universe. These principles are verifiable all the time. These principles, however, may prove to be wrong at some future time, due to the evolvement and involvement some new and better information. In this way, the status of ‘objectivity’ has not been changed; only the status of ‘objective accuracy’ has been changed.

If certain principles of social sciences are also objectively verifiable using the laboratory method, then these are also objective in nature. For example certain principles of Economics are objectively verifiable using the laboratory method, so these principles are also objective.

In case, however, that any ’social science’ uses statistical analysis, instead of laboratory method, as an objectively verifying tool for its ‘principles’, these ‘principles’ would not be considered objective due to the following reasons:

i. Statistical analysis just gives the means and variances etc. of the diverse nature of so many but limited numbers of subjective opinions. An average of lets say 100 or 1000 diverse subjective opinions can be considered ‘more reliable’ subjective information but cannot be considered to be ‘objective’.

ii. The results of such statistical analysis cannot pass the test of ‘falsification principle’. So it does not come up to the definition of objectivity on which all persons have to agree.

iii. Such statistical analysis only shows the tendency to which the sample size population can agree. It does not give the guarantee that the results will remain the same if they are applied to whole population.

iv. If sample size is taken to be 100 and we get a particular tendency – now if we take another sample of 100 – we may not get the same particular tendency. So the results of statistical analysis still may not be true even if they are applied only to another same size population.

v. The nature of the results of statistical analysis is that the tendency so resulted is only the subjective opinion of that particular sample population. This ’subjective’ opinion of that particular sample population may be different from the ’subjective’ opinion of another particular sample (same size) population.

vi. There are differences in opinions within the sample and between same size populations.

vii. The resultant statistical tendency cannot be considered to be the conclusive evidence that the tendency shall remain the same over time, or shall remain the same for all the population or even, shall remain the same with another same size sample population.

viii. Personal opinions of different people cannot be assigned same weight. Most of the people shall fill the survey form without in depth consideration into the issue involved. In this way actually they are providing such information to which their own minds are not clear.

ix. In such survey forms the response of some or many respondents may be wrong/ false. But under this approach, wrong information is given the same weight as is given to the true information. So the effects of that wrong information reaches up to the level of final results. This is the most serious drawback of this approach.

Generally following types of theories are studied in these ’social sciences’:

i. ‘Behavioral aspects’ of individuals, groups, whole society and culture etc.

ii. ‘Nature’ of ‘relationships’ between individuals, groups or various types of institutions.

iii. ‘Nature’ of various types of social institutions.

Among these types of theories, it seems that only the behavioral aspects up to a limit, can be studied under laboratory settings/ environment. So only the behavioral types of social theories can be objective in nature.

The study of the ‘nature’ of institutions or the ‘nature’ of relationships between individuals, groups or institution always require the subjective theories (opinions) of the scholars.

In fact the theories (i.e. principles) of physical sciences which are objective in nature also only (or mostly, at least) discuss the behavioral aspects of the physical entities (including psychological entities) of the physical world. The study of the ‘nature’ of the physical world, for the most part at least, is also a subjective matter.

The philosophies that talk of behavioral aspects also can be objectively verifiable and so can acquire the status of science as well. For example ’structure of mind and knowledge’ (i.e. ‘nature’ of mind and knowledge) is subjective issue but ‘idea generation theory’ and ‘growth in knowledge theory’ (i.e. behavioral aspects) are objectively verifiable.

As a result of this discussion, we can differentiate between ‘objective principles’ and ‘objective rules’ in the following manner:

‘Objective principles’ may include behavioral type physical as well as social sciences whereas ‘objective rules’ include religious principles as well as man made principles i.e. law, grammar etc.

The nature of ‘objective principles’ is different from that of ‘objective rules’. Objective principles are universal. These principles cannot be violated by any segment of the related entities. In fact it is impossible (more rigidly in case of physical sciences and less rigidly in case of social sciences) to violate these principles.

‘Objective rules’ on the other hand, usually have limited jurisdiction. Pakistani laws are enforceable in Pakistan only. Here jurisdiction is limited but the ‘objectivity’ still is universal. An American, for example if needs to quote the reference material from Pakistani law, he has to quote exactly what the Pakistani law says on that issue. Jews, although they do not follow Geeta, (i.e. Geeta’s jurisdiction does not cover Jews) but if they have to refer to some text of Geeta they have to quote it in objective manner otherwise the quotation would be wrong.

If a Jew wants to ‘convince’ a Hindu and for this purpose he uses reference material for argumentation purpose, from Geeta, in this case reference material is subjective for Jew (a better view however is that the reference material is still objective for Jew. The only thing is that he does not consider it to be true.) but he has used it in objective manner. This reference material is objective for Hindu because he accepts it to be true. In this case we have seen that an objective rule which is not required to be followed by a person, can still be objectively utilized by that person for the sake of argumentation with the person who is required to follow the objective rule.

In a similar case, an objective rule, if required to be accepted and followed by both the persons, then both of them can utilize that objective rule for argumentation but in the example of the previous paragraph, the Hindu cannot use statements of Geeta in order to convince the Jew because statements of Geeta are not required to be followed by the Jew. There may, however be certain exceptions due to the nature and kind of debate involved.

If Muslims want to convince other Muslims that ‘interest’ is wrong etc. they can argue with the references of Quran and Hadith. But if Muslims have to convince the rest of the world, then they have to use the material, which is currently considered acceptable for all the rest of world.

The objectivity of the objective rules is universal. This statement can be elaborated in the following way:

–> If an Arab person says that, “She is sewing a frock” is an example of present continuous tense. This statement is objective in nature even if an Arab person gives the statement.

–> To say English is better language than Arabic or vice versa, these statements would be subjective in nature. These are just statements and are not the rules. But to describe the rules of either English or Arabic would be objective in nature. The truth of those described rules can be objectively verified.

Other types of Objectivity i.e. other than Principles and Rules:

–> Statements that describe certain facts, if objectively verifiable, then these statements are objective in nature. In the case of statements, there is no restriction as to the nature of facts involved. These facts can be scientific or can be non-scientific.

–> To say that a particular statement is written in lets say page 150 of a particular book. This fact is objectively verifiable. We can open the page No.150 of that particular book and can see whether that statement is present there or not. See that this type of statement is not scientific in nature.

–> Objectively verifiable historical facts are also objective but in limited sense due to various points of view involved.

	Objectivity
Principles + Tendencies	Rules	Statements
Physical sciences Social sciences (i.e. only behavioral aspects in case of principles and attitudes etc. in case of tendencies.)	Religious code + man made rules (do not need to be behavioral only i.e. whatever type or nature of any entity is described in religious code have to be accepted in as it is form)	Simple facts (only that are objectively verifiable)

Subjectivity
Tendencies	Simple facts i.e. non-verifiable facts.

Nature of objective evidence:

Sr. No.	Type of Objectivity	Independent/ External Evidence
1	Simple facts as well as objective rules.	Some referenced document or other referenced material etc.
2	Principles of physical sciences	Laboratory/ Experimental method
3	2nd type cause effects related to physical sciences	Right explanation of all the related observable phenomenon.
4	Verifiable principles of social sciences	Laboratory setting approach.
Following entity is generally considered to be objective but does not seem to be.
1	Theories of social sciences based on statistical analysis.	No evidence available

In the theories of social sciences, which are said to be based on findings of the statistical analysis – in fact these theories cannot be supported by independent objective evidence.

The nature of objective evidence for all the identified types of objectivity are that these types of objectivity can be tested for the corresponding evidences (i) as and when needed and (ii) for as many number of times as we choose.

Whereas the social sciences’ those theories which are based on statistical type of analysis cannot be proved to be true (i) as and when needed and (ii) for as many number of times as we choose.

The only ‘evidence’ in this case is the result of statistical analysis upon which these theories have been formulated. The result of the statistical analysis can be considered to be ‘more reliable subjective information’ but it cannot be considered to be ‘objective’. This ‘more reliable subjective information’ is not objective because it cannot be proved to be true/ false (i) as and when needed & (ii) for as many number of times as we choose.

Thus the definition of ‘objectivity’ that can be derived out of this discussion would be the following:

“A given fact or principle is objective if it can be proved to be true or false or can be proved to be on a particular level between truth and falsity (i) as and when needed and (ii) for as many number of times as we choose.”

The given fact or principle, in order to be ‘objective’, does not need to be true also. But it does need to be objectively verifiable for its precise truth value (i) as and when needed & (ii) for as many number of times as we choose.

The nature of statistical analysis for the sake of formation of theories about social issues is similar to that of ‘consultation’. In my opinion, for these purposes, extensive consultation should be preferred over statistical analysis.

Both activities give impartial subjective information. Consultation is different from statistical analysis in that in consultation activities analysis is done by each person who is giving the opinion in the consultation process. This analysis is done on the issue itself. In the case of statistical analysis, on the other hand, the respondents actually do not analyze the issue itself. They just fill the survey forms without any in depth consideration on the issue involved. Statistical analysis is actually an analysis of these ‘un-analyzed’ subjective opinions for the sake of finding out various types of averages of these ‘un-analyzed’ subjective opinions. So in statistical analysis, individual opinions are not analyzed opinions. These are just ‘un-contemplated’ type of opinions and the ’statistical analysis’ is not the analysis of issue itself but is the analysis of ‘un-contemplated’ opinions. As previously has been described that both consultation and such statistical analysis give ‘impartial’ subjective opinion. Here another important distinction needs to be made between the type of impartiality given by consultation and that of such statistical analysis.

True meanings of Impartial Opinion:

By definition, impartial opinion is one which is not one sided. Here, not being one sided, does not necessarily means that input from more than one different opinions have to be part of the resulting impartial opinion. To be ‘impartial’ means only that while finalizing our opinion on the issue we have positively analyzed and considered all the different and opposing available opinions. As a result of this activity, we can get such a finalized impartial opinion which may contain input from more than one different or opposing opinions or the resulting impartial opinion may be such that only one of the opinions has been taken to be the finalized opinion. If we have chosen only one of the opinions as finalized one even then, in this case, this chosen finalized opinion is ‘impartial’ in nature because we have chosen it after proper evaluation of all other different and opposing available opinions. In fact, we have preferred this single opinion to all the others because after proper analysis and evaluation of all the available opinions, we have concluded that this single opinion is the accurate one as well as it is sufficient for our purpose.

If we finalize only one opinion without proper analysis and evaluation of all the available opinions, then our choice, in such manner cannot be termed as ‘impartial’. In this case, our choice is simply one sided. But if we select the same opinion but after proper analysis and evaluation of all the available opinions, then our same choice, in this way shall become impartial. So impartiality in fact does not necessarily require input from more than one different opinions but it does require proper and positive analysis and evaluation of all the available opinions on the issue, before deciding about the selection of the most appropriate opinion.

As we have seen that the statistical analysis which is used to form theories about social issues, actually also gives a form of ‘impartial’ subjective opinion. The ‘impartiality’ in this case, however, cannot be considered to be included in the true concept of the ‘impartial opinion’. We have concluded earlier that impartiality does not necessarily require input from more than one different opinions. If there are only two opposing opinions and only one of the opinions is true, the impartial approach here is that to analyze and evaluate both the opinions and then to decide in favor of only one of the opinions. In this case if we select input from both the opinions and in this way form a new synthesized opinion, our new synthesized opinion would be wrong and misleading because it would include input from a wrong/ false opinion also. And this is exactly what threat is associated with such types of statistical analysis. Statistical analysis in fact cannot lead us towards the truth or towards the actual factual position, as far as theoretical nature issues are concerned. Such statistical analysis, actually would take us to the various types of averages of a bundle of true and false opinions. These averages are quite useless in case of theoretical issues but however, are useful in cases other than theoretical issues such as the averages of liking/ disliking etc. or the averages of demographic data etc. In general terms, we just cannot ask from a sample population about the definition of culture or civilization. If we statistically analyze these kinds of theoretical issues then actually we are moving in a wrong direction. It should be noted that most of the theories of so called ’social sciences’ are not behavioral in nature. For example the theory of culture and civilization are the major theories of Sociology. These theories are not behavioral in nature and so cannot be studied in laboratory settings. We know that theories, other than objective rules, can be considered to be objective only if the theories can be studied in laboratory setting. We also know that statistical analysis actually does not result in objectivity. We also know that it is quite wrong to ask about the nature of culture and civilization from general public through survey forms. The only way left to form theories about the nature of culture and civilization is through the efforts of scholars who shall form subjective theories about these issues after deeply considering the related issues. So we have seen that major theories of Sociology have to be subjective in nature. But practically the subject of Sociology is considered to be objective in nature and Sociology is considered to be a “social science” for unknown reasons. We can acknowledge that Sociology also have ‘applied aspects’. In fact ‘Applied Sociology’ is a separate field of Sociology. So maximum what we can accept would be that we can acknowledge only ‘Applied Sociology’ to be an objective subject and so we can accept only ‘Applied Sociology’ to be a “social science”. It is also another fact that the ‘applied theories’ of ‘Applied Sociology’, mostly are applicable to too much micro a level. In fact most of the ‘theories’ have been formed for only particular settings and these theories cannot be generalized. But however, the analysis of ‘Applied Sociology’ is an independent and separate issue which is not coverable right here. We only shall conclude that most of the “social sciences” are not “sciences” at all. These subjects are ’subjective’ in nature. The applied aspects are of too much minor in nature that only on the basis of these minor applied aspects, these subjects cannot be considered objective.

Again come to the ’statistical analysis’. What is typically done in these kinds of statistical analysis is that a questionnaire is filled by a selected number of people. The questionnaire usually asks close ended questions and a limited choice of answers is given. Respondents only have to choose the answers from the given limited choice. Usually the choice of the respondent is based on instant and immediate ‘feelings’ about the question. The respondent typically does not properly analyze or evaluate the issue in question before making choice of answer. So actually the response of the respondent is an un-analyzed subjective opinion. In this way similar kind of other un-analyzed subjective opinions are collected from all the selected respondents. Then statistical analysis is performed and various kinds of statistical averages, of the un-analyzed subjective opinions, are calculated. The average opinion calculated in this way is considered objective in nature by the “social scientists”.

Obviously the average of selected ‘un-analyzed subjective opinions’ cannot become objective. The real situation would be that the average of a number of ‘un-analyzed subjective opinions’ is such a subjective opinion which has taken input information from all those ‘un-analyzed subjective opinions’ involved. And since some or many of those ‘un-analyzed’ subjective opinions may be totally wrong so the effects of those wrong opinions also shall be included in the average calculated opinion. In this way not only that such an average opinion cannot be considered ‘objective’, it also cannot be considered to be ‘impartial’ in the true sense of ‘impartiality’. So the “social scientists” are wrong in considering this average opinion to be objective in nature. The ultimate consequence is that these so called “social sciences” in fact are subjective in nature and since the research method, which has been used in order to formulate the theories of these so called social sciences, contains a serious flaw that the facts which are considered objective by this type of research method, actually these facts cannot even be given the status of ‘impartial subjective opinion’ because these so called ‘objective’ facts contain effect of false input information also. So the ‘facts’ as described in these so called ’social sciences’ actually contain the effects of wrong and false information also and therefore can be considered to be totally un-reliable. The status of these ’social sciences’ also cannot be considered to be that of ’science’ because actually these theories are subjective in nature. And since due to serious drawback present in the research method, there is need to review all the theories of these so called “social sciences”.

In my opinion, the nature of social issues, mostly, cannot be objectively analyzed so in order to study these issues, we have to formulate a better subjective approach as a research method for such kind of issues. Such a subjective approach should be impartial in true sense of ‘impartiality’. In these issues, we cannot be objective but we can be impartial. Under present situation, in fact we not only are not objective, in fact we are also not impartial. Actually we need to be, at least, impartial because we cannot be objective but we can be impartial.

The best approach that can be used as research method for these issues, in my opinion, is to logically analyze and evaluate, in impartial manner, all the well considered opinions on the issue and finally to reach at a conclusion which should be the theoretical representative of the real situation.

We must understand that objective theories cannot be formulated for most of the social issues and we have to rely on ‘impartial and comprehensive subjective theories’. The other thing that we should understand is that nothing is a final word in such kind of subjective approach so the theories so formulated shall remain in continuous and infinite process of improvement.

Nature of Objective Facts & Rules (i.e. excluding Principles):

The objective facts & rules may or may not be compatible with the reality. In fact, the truth-value of the objective facts and rules can be misleading or even can be illogical. For example a government can enforce an illogical law. These differences can be known. The scientific principles cannot be known to be misleading or illogical unless a better explanation for that principle has been evolved as a result of the application of a new information about the issue. Since these principles cannot be known to be misleading so we have to take their truth-value in as it is form.

Objective and Subjective Tendencies:

Objective Tendencies and Subjective Tendencies:

Objective Tendencies:

For example, in Geography, the ‘climate’ is considered to be long term average of weather conditions. ‘Objective’ (actual) data of various elements of weather such as temperature, humidity, precipitation, etc. is collected over long period of time (lets say 30 years), then using the techniques of the statistical analysis, various averages are derived. These averages are the ‘objective tendencies’ in this case. These tendencies are objective because the source data was objective in nature.

‘Objective tendencies’ are different from ‘objective principles’. The ‘principles’ that are objectively verifiable to be true are the objective principles.

‘Principles’ cannot be objectively verified using statistical techniques. The results of statistical techniques can only be objective or subjective tendencies. Tendencies are different from principles. Principles are generalized abstractions of material or abstract phenomena. Principles can be objectively verified only through laboratory method. Whenever ‘principles’ shall be tested using laboratory methods, we always shall receive the expected results (in case of cause-effect relations, however, we may or may not get the expected results but in case of ‘principles’, we always shall receive the expected results).

Tendencies, on the other hand, are derived (i.e. not verified) using statistical techniques. Generally such tendencies are derived out of the statistical analysis which is performed on past or present data. On the basis of such derived results, predictions about the characteristics of the phenomenon in question, about the future periods are made. There is no guarantee, however, that in future, the characteristics of the phenomenon shall be those as were anticipated or predicted as per the results of those statistical techniques. The term ‘verification’ does not seem to be suitably applied in the case of tendencies because ‘verification’ is always done with the hope to get the expected results. Since there is no guarantee in the case of tendencies that the actual outcome of the phenomenon shall always be as per the predictions, so we do not have any such hope to get the expected results in the case of tendencies. So the term ‘verification’ is not suitably applicable in the case of tendencies. Tendencies, however can be re-derived (i.e. not verified). Upon re-derivation, the tendencies may not give the same result as before.

In case of ‘principles’ the term ‘verification’ is suitable because we hope that we shall get expected results using the laboratory method. In case of tendencies, we cannot have this kind of hope. Whenever we shall again test our results by again applying the statistical technique to the same sample size, we cannot hope to get exactly same outcome (expected) that we received previously. So tendencies cannot be verified, they can just be re-derived. We always shall not receive the expected results.

Nature of ObjectiveTendencies:

Objective tendencies are sum total effect of various underlying principles. The principles, individually can be objectively verified through laboratory method but the total effect of so many principles can become so much complex that now this total effect cannot be tested through laboratory experimentation. Now it is convenient to analyze the total effect in terms of statistical analysis.

Difference of ‘Objective Tendencies’ and Mathematics’ concept of ‘Probability’:

‘Objective Tendencies’ are the ‘generalizations’ of particular occurrences that are ‘observed’ and ‘analyzed’ in a controlled manner. In other words, ‘objective tendencies’ are ‘particular to general’ type of conclusions. Particular data about certain objective phenomenon are statistically analyzed and various averages are calculated. The ‘generalized conclusion’ is that so calculated averages are considered to be the integral characteristics of the phenomenon in question. Thus future occurrences are considered to be predictable because it is thought that the calculated averages, which are the ‘integral characteristics’ of phenomenon in question, shall determine the nature, in quantitative terms, of the future occurrences of the phenomenon under study.

The concept of ‘probability’, as found in mathematics, has slightly different meanings. ‘Probability’ is not ‘particular to general’ type of conclusion. In case of probability, the phenomenon under study usually can have limited number of possible outcomes. By applying the ‘mathematical tool’ i.e. probability, it is tried to determine such issues as probability (in numerical or percentage terms) of the occurrence of particular outcome in the immediate next time in future etc. This concept can be better explained by quoting some real numerical problems that can be seen in mathematics’ textbooks. Following are some of the examples:

Example-1:

In a box, there are 5 red balls with numbers printed on them (one on each ball) and three white balls with numbers 1,2,3, (one on each ball). From the box a man draw 2 balls at random.

a. What is the probability that one of the balls drawn is white and other is red?

b. What is the probability that the two balls drawn have the same number or the same color?

Example-2:

6 cards are drawn at random from a deck of 52 cards. What is the probability that three will be red and three black.

Example-3:

Three coins are tossed. What is the probability of
getting (i) exactly two heads (ii) at most two heads (iii) at least one head.

Example-4:

“A bag contains 8 white and 8 black balls. 4 balls are drawn. Find the number of possibilities in which;

a. All are white.

b. All are black.

c. 2 white and 2 black.

Another Example with Solution:

Problem:

Find the probability that on throw of a die will;

a. Have ‘3′ on top.

b. Have ‘5′ on top.

c. Greater than ‘4′.

d. An odd number.

Solution:

A die is a cube-shaped gambling instrument with dots numbering one to six on each side. Assume that it is well balanced die; that is, each of the six sides will have an equal chance to turn on the top when the die stops in a throw.

Then the sample points are the six dots and the sample space is;

S = {1,2,3,4,5,6}

The following answers have been “calculated” in the solution :-

Solutions:

a. = 1/6

b. = 1/6

c. = 1/3

d. = 1/2

Critical Analysis of this concept of ‘Probability’:First of all we should consider that despite being the ‘probability’ of 1/6 of having ‘3′ on top, the actual practical throws of die, most ‘probably’ shall give different results than to the ones so calculated. There must be something wrong in this type of ‘mathematical’ probability. If it is valid then practically every one out of six throws of die must show ‘3′ on top. If the practical ratio of having ‘3′ on top is different from the calculated value, then this type of ‘probability’ must be invalid. Practical invalidity of this type of probability is quite easy to prove. Just practically throw the die, lets say for 100 times and note down the number of times when die had ‘3′ on top. Most ‘probably’, the practically observed ratio shall be different from the calculated value. Consider the following practical results when a die was actually thrown 102 times and the results are recorded:

Valueon Top	ActualFrequency	‘Probable’Frequency (1/6)
1	16	17
2	22	17
3	16	17
4	14	17
5	13	17
6	21	17
Totals	102	102

Valueon Top	ActualFrequency	‘Probable’Frequency (1/2)
Odd Numbers	45	51
Even Numbers	57	51
Totals	102	102

Valueon Top	ActualFrequency	‘Probable’Frequency (1/3)
Smaller than 3	38	34
3 and 4	30	34
Greater than 4	34	34
Totals	102	102

The comparison of the actual experimental results with the ‘probable’ values clearly shows that this type of ‘probability’, with surety, cannot be considered to be a practically valid concept. This concept is practically invalid because it is logically invalid.

This Type of ‘Probability’ is Logically Incorrect:

When a die is thrown, for example, the fact that which side shall be on the top has nothing to do with the number of times the die is thrown. Actually there is no logical connection between the ‘top-value’ and the ‘numbers of time’ the die was thrown. The top-value shall not be determined by the number of times the die would be thrown. The valid logical connection of the top-value is actually with ‘just how’ the die was thrown i.e. at what speed, force and angle etc. If the die is thrown every time with exactly the same speed, force and angle etc. then no matter for how many times it is thrown, we always shall get the same top-value. So this type of probability is logically inaccurate because it does not accurately identify the actual logical connection between cause and effect. There is actually no logical connection between top-value and the number of times the die was thrown. But it is actually wrongly has been assumed that the connection has the existence.

Subjective Tendencies:

Social sciences have the claim that their theories are objective in nature because these theories have been formulated on the basis of the results of well organized research methods. These research methods include laboratory experimentation method as well as statistical analysis method. The laboratory method, in case of social sciences is applied usually on minor and micro level issues such as can a particular kind of training improve the work performance of employees or not. This issue can be tested in laboratory settings. Some of the employees can be given that training on test basis and the effects of the training on their performance can be recorded. If the results found to be satisfactory, then the results are generalized and it is considered that the particular training actually results in better performance of employees. There are other technicalities also involved in this process. Various other theories of these social sciences are said to be based on statistical analysis based research methods. The important thing to be noted is that such statistical techniques, as are used in these research methods, cannot give objective output. In typical such a research, a number of persons are selected on sample basis and their subjective opinions on any particular social issue are taken. This data is compiled and then this compiled data is statistically analyzed and various averages are derived. These averages are claimed to be the objective output.

In fact these averages are not objective in nature. These averages are just ’subjective tendencies’. These tendencies are subjective because the source data was only the subjective opinions of the selected number of persons.

The concept of ’subjective tendencies’ should be differentiated from the concept of ‘impartial subjective opinions’. The ‘impartial subjective opinions’ are those that are not one sided or ‘partial’. To be impartial does not necessarily mean that input from all the available opinions on the issue have to be part of the resulting opinion. An impartial subjective opinion may get all the input from only one of the available opinions on the issue and still not be given the status of being ‘one sided’ or ‘partial’. It is so because, as previously also has been described, that while becoming ‘impartial’, all other available opinions are positively evaluated and analyzed. After such evaluation, only one of the opinions may be considered to be the true one. This finally selected opinion, in this case, is the ‘impartial subjective opinion’. The ‘impartial subjective opinions’ can be derived only through oral or written debate which is composed of both objective and subjective elements. We cannot get impartial subjective opinions by applying statistical techniques.

Subjective tendencies, on the other hand, necessarily take input from all the available subjective opinions. In this way the impact or the effect of wrong opinions also becomes part of final results. This is the necessary result of the application of statistical techniques in case of analysis of opinions on any theoretical issue. So statistical analysis based subjective tendencies, in fact are the tendencies of right and wrong opinions. These types of tendencies cannot be considered to be objective facts. But this is what social scientists are actually doing. Now see that the laboratory method, in the case of social issues, which is mostly applicable only in the case of minor and particular micro level issues. Other theoretical issues of these ’social sciences’ cannot become objective just due to the fact that these issues have been resolved through the application of statistical analysis based research method. The major issues of these ’social sciences’ for example the major theories of Sociology which are the nature of society and culture as well as roles and functions of various social institutions etc. can neither be tested in laboratory settings for their accuracy and validity, nor it would be right to test these theories using any statistical analysis based research method. So it is just incomprehensible for why the subject of Sociology (including some other ’social sciences’ as well) is considered to be an objective subject and why this subject is considered to be a ’social science’ when actually the nature of its major theories and issues is subjective? Actually, the subject of Sociology is considered to be objective in nature for un-known reasons.

These subjective tendencies are also not ‘principles’. There can be no subjective principles. Subjectivity cannot be verified through laboratory methods. Even if some phenomenon of human’s internal feelings is verifiable under laboratory settings, then in this case even this ‘internal feeling’ cannot be considered to be subjective in nature. Now this type of ‘internal feeling’ has become objective, because it is verifiable under laboratory settings. Only those internal feelings and information are subjective which cannot be known to others by using any external object or event including laboratory method. Subjectivity can be known to others only through proper use of argumentation.

The things that can be verified through laboratory methods are ‘objective principles’. And the ‘principles’ are only those that can be objectively verified through laboratory methods. Since subjectivity cannot be objectively verified using the laboratory methods, so there cannot be any such thing as ’subjective principles’. And if subjectivity becomes testable using laboratory method then it automatically becomes objective. So subjective principles cannot exist. Subjectivity can be in the form of ‘impartial subjective opinion’ or may be in the form of ’subjective tendencies’. These two are separate concepts and should be applied for different purposes. The ‘objective tendencies’ can be used for the purpose to forecast future objective events. The ’subjective tendencies’, on the other hand, can be used only for the purpose to forecast future tendencies of subjective opinions. It means that future social events cannot be rightly forecasted using the subjective tendenciesbecause the impact of wrong opinions, which is part of subjective tendencies would not let us rightly forecast about the social events. Future social events however can be better forecasted using the accurate impartial subjective opinions.

Objective Tendencies	Forecasting about the future objective events may or may not be true with more chances of being true.
Subjective Tendencies	Forecasting about the future social events have to be wrong except in the case of by chance true forecasting. Forecasting about future tendencies of subjective opinions, however may or may not be true with more chances of being true.
Accurate Impartial Subjective Opinions	Forecasting about future social events as well as about future subjective tendencies may or may not be true with more chances of being true.

Objective tendencies only can forecast about future objective events. Subjective tendencies cannot forecast about future social events but these subjective tendencies can forecast about future pattern of subjective opinions. Accurate impartial opinions can forecast about future social events as well as about future pattern of subjective opinions.

As already have been stated that the subjective tendencies, due to their nature, cannot be used to forecast about future social events. These tendencies, however, can be used to forecast just about the future patterns and tendencies of future subjective opinions.

A given pattern of a number of subjective opinions

cannot accurately represent the overall social situation. This pattern only represent the general opinions on the issue i.e. it do not represent the actual situation about the issue. On the other hand, the impartial subjective opinion can represent the overall social situation. Personal Opinions on Social Issues can be of
following Types (i.e. following type of data can be collected through survey forms for the purpose of finding their statistical averages):

1) Likings/ dislikings of people (their own)	On the basis of statistical averages of these likings/ dislikings we only can conclude that certain percentage of people would possibly ‘like’ the product etc. On the basis of this information, we however cannot conclude that the product itself is good or bad etc.
2) Objective facts such as age, sex, education etc.	Statistical analysis of these kind of data shall give ‘objective tendencies’.
3) Personal Attitudes	Similar to the case of likings/ dislikings.
4) Opinions about any particular social issue	Statistical analysis of these kind of data would always give misleading results due to the involvement of the impact of wrong opinions even in the final results.

Nature of Laboratory Method and Components of Science:

Is laboratory experimentation method inductive in nature? (Note: the term ‘inductive’ here is used with its old meanings i.e. generalization):

We know that ‘principles’ are the abstract generalizations of various natural phenomena. These principles are not the results of any laboratory experimentation. Laboratory experimentation, in fact is used just to ‘objectively’ verify the truth of the principle. The concept of laboratory method seems opposite to the concept of induction i.e. generalization.

Again see that:

“Principles are abstract generalizations of various natural phenomena.”

The thing, which is to be objectively verified through the laboratory method, is already ‘general’ in nature. This thing (i.e. principle) not only is ‘general’ but also is ‘abstract’.

The laboratory method is opposite to induction because in the laboratory method, we try to confirm the truth of ‘abstractly generalized’ principle by translating it into a ‘material particular’ occurrence.

If the results of that ‘material particular’ occurrence give the same value as was suggested by the ‘abstract generalized principle’, then we consider that the truth of the ‘abstract generalized principle’ has been confirmed.

These concepts can be explained with the help of example. The ‘abstract generalized principle’ for example is that: “material objects, that happen to be support less within the gravitational pull of any massive object, shall fall towards that massive object.” This ‘principle’ is ‘abstract’ as well as ‘generalized’. It is ‘abstract’ because it does not talk of any ‘particular’ material object or any ‘particular’ massive object. It means that the ‘material object’ can be a ball, can be a stone etc. Similarly, the ‘massive object’ can be earth, moon, mars or any such heavenly body having considerable gravitational pull. Since this principle does not talk of any particular material object or any particular massive object so this (principle) is considered abstract. And since this principle does not talk of any particular event but talks of any event that fulfills the conditions, so this principle is considered ‘generalized’. It means that this ‘principle’ is not telling that a material object shall fall towards a massive object. It is telling that all the material objects, always shall fall towards any massive object if happen to be support less in the range of the gravitational pull of that massive object. So the principle is not applicable to only a particular event but it is generally applicable to all such events that fulfill the requirements of the principle.

How we can ‘translate’ this ‘abstract generalized principle’ into a ‘material particular occurrence’? What we need in order to do this? Actually we need a ‘particular’ material object such as a ball, and a ‘particular’ massive object such as earth. In this way we translate the principle from being ‘abstract’ to a ‘material’ principle. Then we have to perform a ‘particular’ event that fulfills the conditions of the original principle. It means that we have to left a ‘ball’ support less in the range of the gravitational pull of the ‘earth’. This particular event shall be the ‘material particular occurrence’. Now we have to see the results i.e. the value given by this ‘material particular event’ in order to verify that this value is the same as was suggested by the ‘abstract general principle’ or not. So if the ball actually would fall towards earth on that particular occurrence, we actually would have confirmed the accuracy of the ‘abstract general principle’.

Principles are not discovered as a result of any laboratory experimentation. These are in fact the result of observations of ordinary phenomenon and then thinking and imaginative activities of human mind. Such principles can be the result of combined efforts of more than one mind. Laboratory method is just a tool which is used to objectively verify those principles.

Some principles however have been claimed to be the outcome of laboratory experimentation. For example the ‘method to produce sulfuric acid’ by Jobber bin Hayaan and the ‘relative constancy of the speed of light’ by Michealson and Morlay etc. have been claimed to be the outcome of the laboratory experimentation.

The actual situations were however different from these claims. The ‘principles’ derived in these experiments were ‘accidentally derived’. The objectives of the laboratory experimentation were different. Those accidental results which were ‘observed’ during the laboratory experimentation, which were being performed to verify entirely different issues, just served the purpose of a newly observed new information which paved the way for the formation of new principles as a result of mind activity which was the ‘idea generation process’. So it was not laboratory method which led towards the formation of generalized principles. Those ‘laboratory experiments’ were just accidentally observed new information that led to the formation of new generalized principles.

In laboratory method, actually we observe, under controlled conditions, the results of particular occurrence not for to form new generalized principles but for to confirm the objective validity and truth of an already known generalized principle. Therefore laboratory method is not inductive in nature. It does not give generalized results. It only tests a particular material occurrence, under controlled conditions. This occurrence is the ‘material particular’ translation of an ‘abstract generalized’ principle. The result of the laboratory experimentation is also ‘material particular’. But this result has to verify the truth of the given ‘abstract generalized principle’. So particular information has not been generalized here. The thing which actually has been done is that an already available generalized principle has been tested through particular application of that generalized principle.

Are all principles ‘abstract general’?

All principles are ‘general’ but all the principles may not be ‘abstract’ also. In fact, there are two types of principles:

i. Abstract generalized principles &;
ii. Material generalized principles.

For example the principle of the right-angle triangle i.e. “x² = y² + z²” is abstract generalized principle. This principle tells us a general relationship between entities which are not essentially material i.e. x, y and z, themselves are not any material quantities but they can represent material quantities. So x, y and z are abstract entities in this case.

Another principle, on the other hand, that states that a particular proportion of Hydrogen (i.e. a material entity), if combined with the particular proportion of Oxygen (i.e. another material entity), would give water (i.e. still another material entity) as a result. This principle also tells us about a general relationship between entities but the entities, in this case are not abstract. The entities are specific i.e. Hydrogen and Oxygen. These specific entities are material in nature. So these types of principles are ‘material generalized principles’.

Components of Science:

Following may be considered to be the major classification of all the components of science:

1. Objective Principles:

Objective principles have already been defined. These principles are verifiable only through laboratory method. Following is the sub-classification of objective principles:

i. Abstract generalized principles.
ii. Material generalized principles.

It should be noted, however that principles may be known as well as un-known. Only the known principles are the component of science. Science does not include un-known things.

2. Objective Tendencies:

For example ‘climate’ which is long-run average of various components of weather for a specific geographical area can be considered as an objective tendency. Objective tendencies cannot be verified. They just can be re-derived. Objective tendencies are used to forecast about the future objective events. However these tendencies do not give 100% surety about the occurrence of the forecasted events.

3. Objective Identifications:

For example earth revolves around the sun. In its orbit, the earth’s face is ’tilted’ with an angle of 23 1/2°. This is ‘particular material’ information and is objective in nature. It means that this information is neither a principle, nor a tendency but is a single piece of information. This information is objective because it is supported by indirect objective evidence. This type of information is considered as ‘objective identification’. This is also considered to be a component of science.

4. 2nd Type Cause Effects (only scientific nature):

And note that all the components of science are objective in nature. It means that any subjective entity cannot be considered to be science. Also note that ‘objective statements’ and ‘objective rules’ are also not the components of science.