Page 36 - alligood 8th edition_Neat

CHAPTER 2 History and Philosophy of Science 17

in the philosophy of science. One of the major per- are not the single determining factor of the scientist’s
spectives in the new philosophy emphasized science perception. He identified the following three differ-
as a process of continuing research rather than a ent views of the relationship between theories and
product focused on findings. In this emergent episte- observation:
mology, emphasis shifted to understanding scientific 1. Scientists are merely passive observers of occur-
discovery and process as theories change over time. rences in the empirical world. Observable data are
Empiricists view phenomena objectively, collect objective truth waiting to be discovered.
data, and analyze it to inductively proposed theory 2. Theories structure what the scientist perceives in
(Brown, 1977). This position is based upon objective the empirical world.
truth existing in the world, waiting to be discovered. 3. Presupposed theories and observable data interact
Brown (1977) set forth a new epistemology challenging in the process of scientific investigation (Brown,
the empiricist view proposing that theories play a 1977, p. 298).
significant role in determining what the scientist Brown’s argument for an interactionist’s perspective
observes and how it is interpreted. The following story coincides with the scientific consensus in the study of
illustrates Brown’s premise that observations are con- pattern recognition in how humans process informa-
cept laden; that is, an observation is influenced by tion. The following distinct mini-theories have directed
values and ideas in the mind of the observer: research efforts in this area: (1) the data-driven, or
bottom-up, theory and (2) the conceptually driven,
“An elderly patient has been in a trauma and or top-down, theory (Norman, 1976). In the former,
appears to be crying. The nurse on admission cognitive expectations (what is known or ways of orga-
observes that the patient has marks on her body nizing meaning) are used to select input and process
and believes that she has been abused; the ortho- incoming information from the environment. The
pedist has viewed an x-ray and believes that the second theory asserts that incoming data are perceived
crying patient is in pain due to a fractured femur as unlabeled input and analyzed as raw data with in-
that will not require surgery only a closed reduc- creasing levels of complexity until all the data are clas-
tion; the chaplain observes the patient crying and sified. Current research evidence suggests that human
believes the patient needs spiritual support. Each pattern recognition progresses through an interaction
observation is concept laden.”
of both data-driven and conceptually driven processes,
Brown (1977) presented the example of a chemist and it uses sources of information in both currently
and a child walking together past a steel mill. The organized, cognitive categories and in stimuli from the
chemist perceived the odor of sulfur dioxide and the sensory environment. The interactionist’s perspective
child smelled rotten eggs. Both observers in the exam- also is clearly reflected in Piaget’s theory of human
ples responded to the same observation but with dis- cognitive functioning:
tinctly different interpretations. Concepts and theories
set up boundaries and specify pertinent phenomena “Piagetian man actively selects and interprets
for reasoning about specific observed patterns. These environmental information in the construction of
examples represent different ideas that emerge for his own knowledge, rather than passively copying
each person. the information just as it is presented to his senses.
If scientists perceive patterns in the empirical While paying attention to and taking account of
world based on their presupposed theories, how can the structure of the environment during knowledge
new patterns ever be perceived or new discoveries seeking, Piagetian man reconstrues and reinter-
become formulated? Gale (1979) answered by pro- prets that environment [according to] his own
posing that the scientist is able to perceive forceful mental framework . . . The mind neither copies
intrusions from the environment that challenge his the world . . . nor does it ignore the world [by]
or her a priori mental set, thereby raising questions creating a private mental conception of it out of
regarding the current theoretical perspective. Brown whole cloth. The mind meets the environment in
(1977) maintained that a presupposed theoretical an extremely active, self-directed way.”
framework influences perception, however theories (Flavell, 1977, p. 6)