Science, Scientia, and the Problem of "Empirical Detail"

Dear WSN,

I said I'd get back to the List with my little investigation into the term "empirical detail", and so I have.  Here it is.  I hope it proves both insightful and thought provoking.  If you've any suggestions on the study please tell me.

The attachment contains source texts I used for picking top cases & plugging in my term substitutions.  However, even aside from whether you like the way I did the study or not, or whether it's actually valid or not, I hope that (at least) the inclusion of the texts themselves raises your interests.

Best!

Luke R.

**********

Science, Scientia, and the Problem of “Empirical Detail”

Outline of Operational Terms

A Beginning Question à Can the facts of a scientifically understood and established phenomenon exist apart from the means and methods used to prove it, once it has been empirically demonstrated and accepted into the store of funded knowledge?

Empirical Detail

Factual content employed in a study è An Epistemological Concern

Level of analysis in which a study is completed; level of analysis built into

an experimental study è A methodological concern of sharpening

one’s analytic-investigative tools in order to yield particular kinds of

results depending on the scientist’s purpose in doing the study &

the level of detail he/she wants from it

Alternate Terms f/ Considering the Concept

                Factual Content

                Experimental Detail

                Empirical Content

                Factual Detail

                Experimental Scope

                Fine-grained Experimental Analysis

                Investigative Detail/Content

                Experimental Data or Information/Experimental Results

                Experimental Variables/Empirical Variables (both controlled & indep.)

                Experimental Criteria/Empirical Criteria  

The “facts”/facets/details about a particular phenomenon one studies

The analytic criteria/instrumental means/tools one uses to glean information from one’s tests regarding said phenomenon in question

“Facts” proceeding from the study or from the “Phenomenon” ( /Process, Object, System in question) as its functional aspects, dimensions, or principles which can be discovered either through empiric method or scientiaefic reasoning

Induction/Deduction as a way of shaping how a study will be completed and its results, in terms of content details, procured for a phenomenon under analysis

“Empirical Detail” as that which arises from the thing we study, as light arises from the sun or a thought arises from our minds; the principles of a thing (its aspects, features) that we can arrive at through our intellectual study

“Empirical Detail” as the criteria we use to get results from an experiment or generalized study we undertake.  “ED” as the level of analysis we build into our inquiry in order to get results (information, data); these results can also be termed as being “empirical detail”

The purpose of this study is to consider whether available evidence constitutes a conceptual and linguistic basis for seeing a wider range of meaning in the term “empirical detail.”  Using gathered evidence from eleven different documentary sources taken off the Internet via a Yahoo! Search of the formula “Science” and “Empirical Detail” (what I will term as Exhibit 1 or E1 for short) my objective is to at first consider and then probe deeper into the way the concept is used.  Specifically, I wish to see whether a standard meaning of  “empirical” applies or doesn’t apply to the sources I highlight.  I wish to see if there are other applicable meanings of the term (besides the standard one given in modern dictionaries) and if some of these in fact are at play within the sources I’m examining.

Dictionary Definition of  “Empirical”  (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1980)

Empirical:  adj. Also empiric  1. relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory  2.  originating in or based on observation or experience <~data>  3.  capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <~laws>

Empiric:  n [L empiricus, fr. Gk empeirikos , fr. empeiria experience, fr. en- + peiran to attempt]  … one who relies on practical experience 

Empiricism: … the practice of relying on observation and experiment esp. in the natural sciences …a: a theory that all knowledge originates in experience b: LOGICAL POSITIVISM 

Definitions (& other explanations) from online sources

http://www.babilim.demon.co.uk/pages/gas_laws/definitions/empirical.html

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/prdyc/ch1b2.html

http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~matsmith/def_empirical.htm

http://deming.ces.clemson.edu/pub/den/archive/2001.07/msg00040.html

http://www.firelitigation.com/definition.html

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=empirical*1+0

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn/?stage=1&word=empirical

http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=searchresults&freesearch=empirical&branch=

http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/empirical+knowledge

An initial reading from these sources proves interesting; to some extent whether the term is being used more epistemologically or praxiologically, the meaning of  “empirical detail” (ED) is difficult to ascertain due to the ambiguous way it’s been framed in context.

Hence, by using a number of different alternate terms listed on the preceding page, I plan to substitute these words in context to see whether (1) the meaning of the concept is changed/remains the same and (2) whether such substitution alters the meaning of the larger text or doesn’t.  I’m assuming that if the meaning is altered by a substitution of terms, then different senses of the concept “empirical detail” are being used in the E1 texts.  If the meaning is not changed by the substitution, then foreseeably there would be no drastic change in the term’s connotation and ED in fact should encompass both an epistemological sense and a praxiological sense to itself.  If meaning is altered in the substitution, and those substituted concepts themselves (which reflect a more epistemological sense to ED) are found not to align correctly with either the documentary sources I’m citing or the exact way the writer had used the term “empirical detail” [in order that the text flow more coherently and expressions are kept parallel; where one concept is determined not be inconsistent with the others], but that the contexts align more correctly with a praxiological sense to ED (that is, in terms of Science and Empirical Inquiry as “doing or making something”), then there should be this one singular dictionary-based meaning to “empirical detail” and (insofar as my tests here are concerned) there would seem to be no valid basis for considering the merits of these other senses I described.

THE STUDY:  (Using underlined passages from cited E1 texts)

1. …  To help analyse this empirical detail we draw insights from Habermas' model of society, organisational change theory and institutional theory. …

A.      Substitution #1 – Factual Content -- To help analyse this factual content we draw insights from Habermas' model of society, organisational change theory and institutional theory.

B.       Substitution #2 -- Experimental Detail -- To help analyse this experimental detail we draw insights from Habermas' model of society, organisational change theory and institutional theory.

C.       Substitution #3 -- Empirical Content -- To help analyse this empirical content we draw insights from Habermas' model of society, organisational change theory and institutional theory.

D.      Substitution #4 -- Factual Detail -- To help analyse this factual detail we draw insights from Habermas' model of society, organisational change theory and institutional theory

2. …  Both rich in empirical detail and convincing in its conclusions, this study provides a broader understanding of Mexican social movements and the quest for democracy in developing countries. …

A.      Substitution #1 – Factual Content -- Both rich in factual content/factual detail and convincing in its conclusions, this study provides a broader understanding of Mexican social movements and the quest for democracy in developing countries.

B.       Substitution #2 -- Experimental Detail -- Both rich in experimental detail/empirical content and convincing in its conclusions, this study provides a broader understanding of Mexican social movements and the quest for democracy in developing countries.

C.       Substitution #3 -- Investigative Detail/Content -- Both rich in Investigative detail/content and convincing in its conclusions, this study provides a broader understanding of Mexican social movements and the quest for democracy in developing countries.

D.      Substitution #4 -- Experimental Data -- Both rich in [its] [grasp of] experimental data and convincing in its conclusions, this study provides a broader understanding of Mexican social movements and the quest for democracy in developing countries.

3. … Yet, even without such overtly theorized studies, at the very least we need analyses that show in rich historical and empirical detail how the economy, the state, and cultural forms interact in all their richness and complexity—and that illuminate the effects of these interactions on educational matters. …

A.      Substitution #1 -- Factual Content -- Yet, even without such overtly theorized studies, at the very least we need analyses that show in rich historical and factual content/factual detail how the economy, the state, and cultural forms interact in all their richness and complexity—and that illuminate the effects of these interactions on educational matters.

B.       Substitution #2 – experimental detail/empirical content -- Yet, even without such overtly theorized studies, at the very least we need analyses that show in rich historical and experimental detail/empirical content how the economy, the state, and cultural forms interact in all their richness and complexity—and that illuminate the effects of these interactions on educational matters.

C.       Substitution #3 – Investigative detail/content -- Yet, even without such overtly theorized studies, at the very least we need analyses that show in rich historical and investigative detail how the economy, the state, and cultural forms interact in all their richness and complexity—and that illuminate the effects of these interactions on educational matters.

D.      Substitution #4 -- Experimental Results/Experimental Criteria/Empirical Criteria -- Yet, even without such overtly theorized studies, at the very least we need analyses that show in rich historical and Experimental Results/Empirical Criteria how the economy, the state, and cultural forms interact in all their richness and complexity—and that illuminate the effects of these interactions on educational matters.

4. …  Social Anthropology works with a creative tension between empirical particularity and attention to the broadest theoretical questions about what it means to be a human social agent. Its theory, method and analysis are mutually constitutive. The discipline is notable for its intense focus on fine-grained empirical detail. …

A.      Substitution #1 – factual content/factual detail -- Social Anthropology works with a creative tension between empirical particularity and attention to the broadest theoretical questions about what it means to be a human social agent. Its theory, method and analysis are mutually constitutive. The discipline is notable for its intense focus on fine-grained factual content/factual detail.

B.       Substitution #2 -- experimental detail/empirical content/investigative detail – factual content/ factual detail -- Social Anthropology works with a creative tension between empirical particularity and attention to the broadest theoretical questions about what it means to be a human social agent. Its theory, method and analysis are mutually constitutive. The discipline is notable for its intense focus on fine-grained experimental details/empirical content/investigative detail.

C.       Substitution #3 -- Experimental Scope/Fine-grained Experimental Analysis -- Social Anthropology works with a creative tension between empirical particularity and attention to the broadest theoretical questions about what it means to be a human social agent. Its theory, method and analysis are mutually constitutive. The discipline is notable for its intense focus on [the terms] of fine-grained experimental scope/experimental analysis.

D.      Substitution #4 -- Experimental Variables/Empirical Variables -- Social Anthropology works with a creative tension between empirical particularity and attention to the broadest theoretical questions about what it means to be a human social agent. Its theory, method and analysis are mutually constitutive. The discipline is notable for its intense focus on [the terms] of fine-grained experimental criteria/empirical variables.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS:

I’ve now highlighted four distinct case examples from the E1 sources; it now remains for an analysis of this material (and the evidence in general) to be given.  This isn’t a standard empirical study.  It’s a linguistically centered study that’s brought to bear on (an empirical) set of evidence.  {That is to say, it’s purpose is to investigate usage of the term “empirical detail” to see whether in textual context the concept is more epistemologically-oriented (as in the facts gathered about some phenomena one’s studying as they proceed from a phenomenon itself…) or methodologically-oriented (as in the parameters one designs for a study to yield a desired set of results, one’s controlled & independent variables in a study, and the raw data one gathers from engaging in experimental methods)}  The question that must be asked at the outset of this analysis is whether one’s facts in a scientific study proceed soley from the investigative process itself (as raw data & then re-worked results) or can they also be seen (metaphorically and analogically) as proceeding from the phenomenon and its basic properties?  Is there a point at which the (mutable, particularized) empiric knowledge of science becomes (more ‘universalized”) “given” knowledge?  And, at such a point can our knowledge (+ data + facts) be thought of as a “function” of that selfsame phenomenon in an ontological and epistemological-philosophic sense?  [[For example, is it more proper to think of the precise, finely-tuned Law of Gravity as emanating from the investigative process itself (of empirical scientific research) (and the human attempt to understand things) or from the mass of objects and the forces that exist between them?  Does the systematic relationship complex that we refer to as the Law of Gravity – aside from our formulations of it – come from the way we do our scientific experiments or from the manner in which such relationships exist in nature?]] 

These questions constitute the heart of my study; but they are equally about Aristotelian-Scholastic scientia/scientiaefic reasoning as they are about Science and concrete, practical empirical investigative inquiry.  My basic premise in terms of ‘universalized’ human knowledge is that:  epistemologically and meta-physically speaking, our knowledge/understanding is mapped from the objects we study as their source [[and only then, secondarily, from the empirical methods we employ in a study of real objects -- once such phenomena has been sufficiently demonstrated/validated/proven & ergo accepted into the store of human epistemological wisdom where it becomes an axiomatic given and is used (as fundamental premises) in further empiriological exercises and in scientiaefic reasoning.]]  So, having said that, I now move to the actual “analysis” of my study.

Again, at first glance the substitutions do not show a great gulf of differentiated meaning when either the more epistemological or the more praxiological-methodological terms are used.  But upon closer inspection each case in which the substitutions were made illustrates a propensity towards either an epistemological meaning or a praxiological meaning.  Case #1 works best with “factual detail” being substituted in for ED.  Yet, so as to be more thorough in my investigation of substituted terms, I also wanted to see whether slight variations in terminology made any difference in my findings.  They appear to have not.  Thus even as “factual detail” seems to fit best in this context, it wasn’t apparent that changing terms from “factual detail” to “factual content” produced any differences in either the meaning of the concept or in the meaning of the larger text by any significant degree.  The same thing went for “experimental detail” and “empirical content.”  No significant changes in meaning were produced in the substitutions.  However, in any cases one explores in research like this, if the distinction between “Exp.D” and “Emp.C” amounts to a difference between use tests/natural experiments and more concrete laboratory experiments, then a real difference in meaning would be made manifest for the change from experimental detail to empirical content (since empirical seems at this juncture to cover a wider range of activities and meanings in its widespread usage by scholarship).  But “Exp.D” and “Exc.C” do not fit as well into the textual context of Case #1 as “factual detail” and “factual content” do; since especially in the case of “experimental detail” [“To help analyse this experimental detail we draw insights from Habermas' model of society, organisational change theory and institutional theory.”] the term “Exp.D” just leads one in a circle when substituted in this context of the written material; it merely points the analyst back to the experimental process itself by saying as it were – where did the experimental detail come from?, from the ‘experiment’ of course.  And, what is it exactly that we’re studying in this social scientific experiment?  Why, the experimental detail of course … Linguistically and conceptually, there’s no solid ground in which to speak about the ‘content’ of Case#1’s experimental investigation when such factual material (data) is couched merely in terms of the what the experimental analyst does with it and how it is used/gathered in the study.  Aside from the experiment there would be no ‘content’ to speak of, according to the model that is assumed by virtue of this substitution.  Yet, the data has been gathered from the phenomenon in question here; a phenomenon that exhibits properties that are roughly in accord with the data scientists gather and the terms from which an Aristotelian thinker forms reasoned arguments.  Hence, “factual content/detail” is the best of the substitutions posited in this case for “empirical detail” because it, unlike the others terms, is grounded in solid realities from which experimentation can be carried though and completed without leaving one in a tautological dilemma.  Data is gathered and used in the experiment; the experiment doesn’t create the data or the facts (which is implied in the formulation “experimental detail”).

Case#2 and its results were somewhat more varied.  Again “factual content”/”factual detail” proved to be a workable substitution for ED and the textual material in which it was situated.  However the substitutions of “experimental detail”/”empirical content” work equally as well within the given textual parameters.  In some ways the second substitution may work better considering the formulation of the following sentence:  “Both rich in … and convincing in its conclusions, this study provides a broader understanding of Mexican social movements and the quest for democracy in developing countries.”  Factual detail may be as valid and adequate a substitution here, but because the original ED is situated in the textual context with those terms I’ve italicized, it seems rather apparent that the better substitution may be the second one.  In addition two other substitutions were made; one using the term “investigative detail/content” and the other using “experimental data.”  Both seem to work within the context of the textual material in Case#2, although admittedly in this case additional words [“… both rich in [its] [grasp of] experimental data …”] were added to the text to make it flow better.  Nonetheless, from this case we’re given at the very least an equally compelling argument for the methodologic-praxiological orientation of “empirical detail.”

In Case#3 we find that results similar to those of Case#1 come into play.  The substitution of “factual content”/”factual detail” works best in the given text.  This is especially so because of the sentence formulation “at the very least we need analyses that show in rich historical and … how the economy, the state, and cultural forms interact in all their richness and complexity …” whereby the ED is itself immediately preceded by the term “historical [detail].”  And, even though the term “analyses” might indicate better usage through the other term substitutions, by the very fact that the selected passage makes reference to variables outside the range of controlled experimentation by the analyst (i.e., “historical [detail]” and “how the state and cultural forms interact in all their richness and complexity”) the first substitution of “FC”/”FD” for “ED” seems to fit best.  The other three substituted formulations work less well. “Experimental detail”/”empirical content” does not for that reason.  Neither does “investigative detail.”  Neither does “experimental results/empirical criteria.”

Case#4 had much the same kind of results as Case#3, although for the most part nearly all the other substitutions could validly fit into the textual context also.  “Factual content/factual detail” seemed to be the best of the substitutions; however due to the sentence formulations in the passage – in which the context of the two sentence excerpt was amenable to either the more epistemological terms or the more praxiologic-methodological terms – either set of concept/terms could have been used without changing the overall meaning of the text or implying a far different set of connotations to it.  Therefore, experimental details/empirical content/investigative detail” were all valid substitutions and so were “experimental criteria/empirical variables.”  Although, in order to make the substitutions flow in more nicely with the text, I inserted two other introductory words in brackets (“the terms”) and placed them in the passage (for Substitutions #3 and #4); from this I got the following formulation -> “The discipline is notable for its intense focus on [the terms] of fine-grained …”.  Still, by doing this I am admittedly pushing the limits of my study a bit; even with the inclusion of these two words, Substitution#3 (“ …[the terms] of fine-grained experimental scope/experimental analysis”) still doesn’t work as well as the other substitutions.

IN CLOSING:

Although it may be far too soon in this investigation to tell whether the term “empirical detail” is more epistemological or praxiologic-methodological in orientation, it seems like a good case could be made for the former.  It could very well be however that just as good a case could be made for the latter.  This study (at this point) is by no means either as broad/deep as it probably should be and it’s probably not as rigorous as it needs to be in order to truly test my hypothesis.  More examples at a greater range are required here and the methods that I use to make substitutions and check for term-text conformity need to be tighter and more consistently applied.  I should probably bring to bear other kinds of evidence also to my argument.

Yet, this is a start. With the insights of others and some additional work, I believe the merits of this study could prove promising in trying to more accurately derive just what is constituted by empirical investigation in social science research (especially when the “experimentation” of the natural/physical sciences seems so different from the empirical methods of the social sciences).  As to what the more finalized results of this developing study will be, only time will tell.  Until then it might be a good idea to consider some of the various ways we as scientists and social scientists use the term “empirical” and the various senses it takes on when we’re discussing

(1)     the way we gather data

(2)     the way in which experiments are conducted

(3)     the way we design our studies/experiments

(4)     the results we achieve &

(5)     the differences between the natural sciences and the social sciences in the way they conduct empirical investigations.

---

Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs

New Microsoft Word Document.doc