“I burn as a sacred fire when I think of them
and feel that I will never get tired of repeating them again.”
- Johannes Kepler -
As with any enigma of science the role of the researcher is essential. The resolution of a problem by the researcher is only possible if he has an idea minimally clear of the order he expects to find while he observes reality. The Theory it is only possible if there is an order of ideas previously formulated. Without this model, the isolated information is of no further significance. Thus mean, for any other observer all this information is nothing more than an encyclopedia of facts. As a result, although information is available and within reach of any observer's mind, they are not able to identify any relationship or connection with it.
Acknowledge, knowing and understanding are very different concepts. There is a large difference between the printed book, the book read, and the book understood. Making use of the words of Henri Poincaré: "A lot of bricks is not a house.”.
Deduction and induction are important methodologies, and are used as ways of thinking about science.
The logical implications of the deductive method, which departs from the general to the particular knowledge, are continuously transforming science, appealing for constant improvement and deeply transforming the knowledge until the last detail. This method is part of a logical descending connection or relation between arguments; based on reasoning; applied to a Primordial Law which is considered true (Axiom) and from it, unfolds other implications (demonstrations and deductions).
However, the deduction itself is a method that only serves to ensure the accuracy of the logical path followed by the thought, but is not, besides that, a form which allows to give additional knowledge. In fact, this way of thinking is not very productive and leads to limited results and almost sterile information, since we can consider that the laws demonstrated are merely repetitive and are only particular applications of the general idea, since all the data shown is already implicitly contained in the primordial law.
On the other side the inductive method will be more productive, moreover it provides a reflection on science. Induction is a way of thinking with more capacity and potential to develop the field of knowledge.
The inductive scientific research makes use of the whole cognitive structure of the brain, considering all different information previous assimilated. This method, which arises from the particular to the general subject, stimulates further discoveries, provides new information, opens new paths in science, and discovers unpredictable directions in the branch of knowledge.
In the inductive scientific method the connection is ascendant, whose structure is based on the following assumptions: 1– observation of the phenomenon; 2– discovery of the relationship between several phenomena; 3– generalization and framework of this phenomenon and its relation to a law already known, or, formulation of a new fundamental law .
The induction – on the opposite of deduction - does not only progresses under the relationship between ideas and theoretical knowledge, but believes that knowledge should be based on experience and on direct observation of events and facts of reality; not interpreting or accepting the pre-established dogmas as undefeatable, arguing that the test proof of all forms of knowledge lies in experience.
The true scientific Theory often relays and focuses, consciously or unconsciously, on all these concepts and methods, being difficult to define what methodology was used.
Epistemology, derived from a Greek word (epistémé for science and logos for speech), and it is defined as the study of wisdom and a reflection on the theory of knowledge.
Epistemology is necessarily an interdisciplinary science with flexible guidelines. Within limits, the theorist or scientist can invent and introduce a new word, or slightly modify a concept, in order to use it and adapt it as the best argument for the defense of his idea, his hypothesis or theory created. In his tools can then be included Metaphysics itself.
The term Metaphysics also comes from the Greek ( meta for after or beyond and phusiké for Physics or Nature), for this reason, this form of pursuit of knowledge should not be considered as a non-science. If, in fact, the word metaphysical means 'beyond the physical, or material’, then, this form of understanding focuses on the plan of what is not immediately available as a material experience, as such, aims to achieve the level of abstraction, thus, it can also be considered as a Science of Imagination.
Metaphysics is intangible, untouchable and immaterial, it only exists in the world of ideas and of the abstract. This is not a discipline that seeks knowledge in itself, but rather the understanding of knowledge. Metaphysics proposes a speech that rises beyond all possible experience and therefore cannot be linked to any concrete material experience.
Metaphysics consists in a new language of knowledge, and this is developed neglecting the connection to the empirical world, the demands of understanding, and the awareness of meaning assigned by the conscience of men. All metaphysical science is elaborated from the idea, where thought is the only privileged act with truly freedom. Although the concept of real is not its subject of study, it is also not a transcendent form of knowledge. Our brain, unlike a computer, acts in freedom, makes use of the option, choice, imagination and intuition. These are mind concepts which no scientific deduction will be able to program. In the limit of Physics there is a frontier with Metaphysics.
However, throughout this path there is always a priority: what the researcher is always constantly looking for are the decisive facts for the confirmation, or denial, of his theory. The sacred dogma of the scientific method is only one: the search for truth.
« (…) To the real ones, the truly unique thinkers, to the educated men of ardent imagination. The latest ones - our Keplers, our Laplaces - speculate, theorize; these are the terms. (…) The Kepler, I repeat, speculate, theorize and their theories are only corrected, cleaned, amended, little by little, of their inconsistency layer until finally emerges an unbreakable consistency, a consistency that even the most stubborn and obstinate of man admits, because it is a consistency, as being an absolute and unquestionable truth.
I often think, my friend, that these dogmatic of a thousand years ago would be amazed to determine for which of its two famous roads (...) guided humanity for those important and innumerable truths (...) in particular, these intolerants would have felt some difficulty in determining which of their two roads was achieve the most momentous and sublime of all truths - the truth, the fact, of Gravitation. Newton deduced it from Kepler's Laws. This admitted that he had intuited these laws - those laws whose investigation revealed to the greatest of British astronomers that specific principle, the most fundamental of all physical principles (existed), was the basis behind which we enter the hitherto nebulous kingdom of Metaphysics.
Yes! These vital laws were intuited by Kepler, that is, he imagined them. If he was asked to indicate which of the ways, the deductive or inductive, came to them, his response might have been: ‘I do not know anything about the ways, but I do know the Mechanics of the Universe. Here it is. I caught it with my soul, I came to it through intuition'.
Ah! These poor ignorant. Maybe some of these metaphysicists could have told him that what he called 'intuition' was just the conviction resulting from deductions or inductions, whose process was so nebulous that would have escaped the consciousness mind, deluded reason, or challenged their self-expression and understanding. Too bad that no 'moral philosopher' had enlightened him about all this!
(…) Yes, Kepler was essentially a theoretician. But this title now of so much sanctity, was, in those days, a designation of supreme contempt. It is only nowadays that men begin to appreciate this divine ancient kind of man (…) ».
EDGAR ALLAN POE – Eureka –