Surya Padmanabhan Sridhar1 , Manasa Sharma2
This article compares and contrasts two popular theories of learning: objectivism and constructivism, which then will help us understand how the scientific method works. This will enable us to better understand the implications of these theories when they are applied in relation to linear thinking (the traditional mode of ideation that scientists problem-solve with by using logic, past data and existing solutions) and the scientific method.
What exactly is objectivism? Objectivists believe that people should be free from others’ influence (e.g., social forces) upon their thoughts and actions by building their own values, beliefs, knowledge, etc., through their own judgment. In contrast, constructivists believe that the thoughts and behaviors of others have a significant effect on what people know and believe. To them, we are influenced by the culture around us through three processes: identification, internalization and modeling. Identification is when people relate to a cultural model or artifact as if it were part of their own identity. Internalization is when people adopt another person’s cultural model as if it were a part of their own identity. This means that we might feel a sense of similarity with the cultural models of our expressed language (i.e., we would identify with the speech community). This can even extend beyond verbal expression to include nonverbal devices (e.g., clothes, gestures, behaviors) or objects (e.g., food, possessions).
How can we use this to understand the scientific method?
When we observe an event (e.g., a meteorite hitting the Earth), we can apply the scientific method to learn more about the universe. While observing, we can observe how events happened and collect data (observe) – this is how objectivists operate in regards to learning about the world. But then what is our personal experience of this event?
This means that people have attributed meanings to whatever they have observed and by this, people can decide what they like or do not like about it. When they make decisions based on their own personal interpretation of what they see, they are applying their own values and beliefs – this is how constructivists operate in regard to learning about the world.
Breaking the scientific method down into arguments – Here we utilize both theories of learning to present arguments ‘for’ and ‘against’ statements about scientific research:
Objectivism
Research aims to develop and test hypotheses. Hypotheses must be clearly stated before a study can be designed to test them.
FOR: Most modern scientific research revolves around proving or disproving a hypothesis that stems from a problem statement. The hypothesis is crucial to the scientific method and considering most research is done using the scientific method, research in general aims to develop and test hypotheses.
Example: The theory of gravity states the hypothesis that there is a force between two bodies in free space by virtue of their mass.
AGAINST: Research that aims to develop comparisons and contrasts, explore and observe does not require a hypothesis for work to be carried out.
Example: A comparison between two materials for use in a structure. An engineer would just need to assess both materials and their task. There is no hypothesis being tested.
The world and phenomena are real and exist independent of perception
FOR: The world and phenomena can be proven to exist independently outside of perception as there is a record of these facts before our lifetime and they will continue to exist after.
Example: We have knowledge of the atom and that it is a real thing because it was proven to exist by scientists in the past and that there is a record for us and for future generations.
AGAINST: The world and phenomena are real only because human beings perceive them. However, it is well known that the human senses are limited and flawed. Therefore, without the existence of another sentient party, there is no way to verify that the world, phenomena, and human experience is real and independent of perception. The same would apply to the third party.
Example: Since we are the only sentient species and we don’t know of sentient life aside from ours there is no way to conclusively disprove the theory that the world and phenomena we witness are not real or simulated.
Phenomena can be understood by analysis of their component parts (reductionist philosophy)
FOR: Every discovery we have made and every technological stride that humanity has seen is because of reductionist thinking of natural phenomena.
Example: We initially theorized the existence of molecules and then atoms. Subsequently, we have progressed further into smaller dimensions – subatomic particles and particle physics. Literally a size reductionist field of philosophy. Similarly breaking of motion into simpler components – direction, velocity, acceleration, etc. yielded us classical physics.
AGAINST: Understanding complex phenomena or developing theories that link existing theories together is an incredibly difficult task and a reductionist approach would be self-defeating.
Example: It is a common misconception that climate change can be boiled down to temperature. Which is a very reductionist and narrow-minded view. It has been well established that several factors such as weather patterns, air quality, ozone layer thickness, and many more influence climate.
Constructivism
All knowledge is subjective and socially constructed
FOR: All knowledge that has been gathered so far, is based on our subjective understanding of our surroundings. To make truly scientific observations, it requires replication, repetition, and review. To a certain extent replication and repetition can be done but, review requires a second-person point of view. This makes knowledge in and of itself a social construct.
Example: The peer-review process in the scientific community involves communication and exchange of information and feedback between scientist(s) performing the study and scientist(s) reviewing the study. This is a highly social process.
AGAINST: While the act of collating knowledge may be social, the facts that are described are universal and independent of interpretation, language, or species. Knowledge can only be objective, subjective knowledge is a paradox or the wrong term for an opinion.
Example: A simple fact such as, “the earth is a globe” is an established and verified fact. Regardless of language or the social dynamic or even understanding of the concept, the fact will never cease to be true. Anything thought of as an example, “the earth is flat” or “the earth is not a globe” is refuting fact and is wrong. All knowledge is verifiable and anything that is not verifiable, is not knowledge or is not yet knowledge.
Social phenomena are more than the sum of their parts and can be understood only holistically
FOR: Human behavior is complex and is influenced by a plethora of factors. They can range from interpersonal relationships to personal beliefs and so on. To better understand social phenomena apart from the sum of their parts, context, environment, gender, age, etc. all play major roles. Therefore, it is not just recommended but also necessary to approach it holistically.
Example: Engineers who design products for human use, need to take into consideration human behavior and social interactions in the context of the product being designed. For example, an engineer designing a playground for children must take into consideration the ways children interact with the playground equipment, the ways children interact with each other while moving from one piece of equipment to another, etc. This requires an understanding of every aspect of the children’s behavior on a playground. Therefore, the task of maximizing the entertainment factor while minimizing risk can only be achieved by understanding the social phenomena with a holistic approach.
AGAINST: However complex social phenomena may be, they can always be simplified to smaller and smaller components. A reductionist approach can be used to understand individual parts and applied in context to understand social phenomena.
Example: Social phenomena such as classical conditioning was established by Ivan Pavlov in highly controlled experiments with a very reductionist approach. Classical conditioning is a technique used even today to train AI algorithms.
How does the scientific method and practice benefit from these arguments?
The very nature of the scientific method is argumentative. The approach to an engineering problem or a scientific problem is a crucial element in the process that is the scientific method. Playing the Devil’s advocate helps one choose the best approach or if not the best, choose the optimal approach. This ensures that research and research outcomes are as foolproof and authentic as possible. It would be useful to understand the basics of these two approaches and explore the influence they have on science research and education. Knowledge about learning theories can be useful in classrooms to help gauge students’ approach to science and would ultimately inculcate a research mindset in budding scientists.
Author affiliations:
1 Student, M.Sc. Nanoscience to Nanotechnology, Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea SA1 8EN, Wales, United Kingdom.
2 Associate – Science Communications Design, Scikraft Education and Engineering Design, Bangalore, India
