Reflection on Methods

Rene Descarte shared his own method of seeking truth for the benefit of understanding science, mathematics, theology, human relations and the arts. He proposed to observe the following steps: (1) Never to accept anything for true which one did not clearly know to be such; (2) Divide one’s specimen into as many parts as possible and as might be necessary for its adequate solution; (3) Conduct one’s thoughts from the simplest… to the more complex; and (4) Make enumerations complete. (Discourse on Method Part II, 1637). As I understand his proposal, a research work starts with an individual question and is motivated by a search for something such as change. This single spark can open up many possibilities by which the researcher ought to organize through an outlining system, for example from general to specific and by given definitions of past works. According to him, it is easier to start with the simplest objects and concepts then explore on the more complex. One ought to aim for the completion of thought and that no information is left without supporting details or justifications. He cited such method to be a contribution to development and not to hurt any by taking into consideration the available truths and concepts and what are not being presented as one can observe. Observation can start with a personal interest then aided with a responsibility of judgment. He cited for example the difference in aesthetics and utility of an architecture freely planned out by a single architect than those which were laid out by several men. One is especially built with the intention of creating something new and useful while the other is built on old foundations or structure. A person who grows in France or Germany may grow a different person when one is in China. The environment and underlying structures around affects such person. Spontaneous change can happen as one may observe but a researcher can either stick with the old foundations or create a new one. The strength in Descarte’s method is one founded on feasibility from an assessment of individual capacity. In Paul Feyerabend's Against Method (1975), he mentioned that science and myth overlap in many ways and that a science that insists on possessing the only correct method and the only acceptable results is of a dogmatic. He proposed that one can approach a problem in many ways and not just in one. In his idea of “anything goes”, “distinction between a context of discovery and a context of justification and disregarding the distinction between observational terms and theoretical terms can be abolished” and that “proliferation of theories is beneficial for science while uniformity impairs its critical power. Uniformity also endangers the free development of the individual”. In this method, one can freely explore concepts, thoughts and meanings. I do not prescribe to the idea however that “there is no idea, however ancient or absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge”. Putting to context that some ideas are constructed merely as subordinates to another, such can actually stunt its constituents while another enjoy from its exploit. However, I understand this method encourages the exploration of truth by means of using “constructed” ideas, concepts and images and constructing them to pave way for new meanings. While it is based on anarchy, I think it has a direction, in a way, with the idea of ultimately constructing new meanings. With guided use, this method can be used in my research.#