Introduction

Scientific thinking: it is a mental activity that gives a solution for two types of problems: - Practical
Theoretical

Characteristics of scientific knowledge:

2000 years ago, philosophy was the mother of science.

Since 17th century, science had branched off from philosophy (branching off means separation and
development into specialized branch).
Science is a kind of knowledge. ""

1. Quantitative Language: "Very important for the progress of science and technology"
Scientist uses an accurate words and expressions which are mathematical language (for measurement).
*Qualitative Language: the language which we use every day in our life = natural = ordinary language.

2. Generalization:
It is a logical process of transition from the particular to the universal, from less general to more general
knowledge. "Example: Heat Energy"
3. Objectivity: "The scientific knowledge depends on the objectivity and go away form subjectivity."
Scientist reports their experiments include sheath of details to enable any other investigator to duplicate the
experiment step and thus see by himself wither the reported result really does occur. Repetition and careful
checking by qualified observers minimize the intrusion of subjective factors and maintain the objectivity of
science
4. The test of truth: "Religion = Absolute, so not need evidence"
By giving a solution of problems (hypothesis) and test it by experiments, observations and support it by
evidence to be true or false.
5. The continuity of scientific research:
Scientist never begin from zero point but every scientist begin from where the previous one has stopped and
so on = cooperative activity of a group of scientists.

Why We Think?
What is thinking?

Thinking is the characteristically human method of seeking solutions (for his problems).
Types of problems which are solved without thinking: instinctive problems or automatic responses to
certain situations as habit (involuntary) ""

When we begin to think?

We think when we are confronted with a difficulty, perplexity, problem or unfamiliar situations which
have no ready response, no instinctive or habitual.

Stages of thinking: "The same in all problems"

1. Interest:
The thinker becomes aware of the problems and his interest is stimulated.
Curiosity is not enough to stimulate constructive thought.
Interest is the secret of effective observation to get a new knowledge and to keep it.
2. Attention: "analytic stage"
The problem is formulated and data collected.
Analyze the situation and break it up into its constituent elements to separate those does and those
does not represent any difficulty, then make one question or a series if questions to solve the problem.
3. Suggestion:
Possible solutions to the problem are suggested only after prolonged consideration of the data and
their implications.
Data give rise to suggestion.
4. Reasoning:
The consequence of each suggested solution is worked out. Some suggestions may be dropped
immediately.
The characteristic mark of this stage is using the hypothetical form of argument.
It begins with a supposition considered as a possible solution called hypothesis.
If the hypothesis covers and accounts all the elements that appeared during analysis of solution, the
hypothesis is acceptable as a solution for the problem.
5. Conclusion:
The most satisfactory solution is adopted, which give a meaning to the mystery of the problem, so this
stage is called synthetic stage.
6. Test:
The adapted suggestion is submitted to trial analogous to a controlled experiment in a scientific lab,
we do a practical test to prove that this suggestion is acceptable or not.

Scientific Thinking And The Scientific Method

Science: "a method of investigating nature"
It is a method to discover reliable knowledge, as the science is the only way to acquire this knowledge.
Method: a way of taking a scientific knowledge.
Reliable knowledge: it is the knowledge of great probability to be true and its truth is justified by reliable
methods.
Scientific and critical thinking:
Scientific thinking: scientists study or investigate nature and universe by a scientific method.
Critical thinking: any other persons practice scientific method every day in any aspect except science
(history, solve problems of economics, society investigation).
Scientific thinking and critical thinking between scientists and philosophers:
1. Scientific and critical thinking wasn't developed by scientists.
2. Scientists only brought the practice of critical thinking to the modern society.
3. Scientists are the most explicit, rigorous and successful practitioners of critical thinking.

The Three Central Components Of Scientific And Critical Thinking:

1. Empiricism
2. Rationalism
3. Skepticism
No scientific thinking without these 3 components "change person belief by my conclusion"
1. Empiricism:
By using empirical evidence.
This empirical evidence is the evidence that can: - See
- Hear
- Touch
- Smell
It can be tested by others beside yourself (repeatable), so it is important.
It is the only type used by the scientists and critical thinkers to reach clear conclusions.
There are evidences that oppose the empirical evidence:
1. Hearsay evidence: say what you hear from others.
2. Testimonial evidence: allowed in courts.
3. Circumstantial evidence: means, motive, opportunity.
4. Revelatory evidence: someone says was revealed to them by a supernatural power.
5. Spectra evidence: depend on ghosts and spirits.
6. Emotional evidence: depend on one's feeling.
These 6 evidences are unreliable "not repeatable".

The most evidence that oppose the empirical evidence is Authoritarian evidence:
In TV people, books "authorities".
When authority is reliable, the authoritarian evidence is reliable.
Reliable authorities must be checked before accepting by power of critical thinking.
It is the most common method for transmitting knowledge because of:
1. Reinforcement to listen, obey and believe authorities (as parents) from birth
2. Human societies depend on few experienced or trained authorities that affect us with great
value.
3. Authoritarian evidence is the quickest and most efficient method for transmitting information.

Example: Max plank discovered in 1900 that energy is produced in form of pulses not in

continuous form, he told about this in 1905 because the nature had practiced the
authoritarian evidence on him.
Empirical evidence and naturalism:
Empirical evidence = natural evidence.
Naturalism is philosophy that says "Reality and existence" can be explained in terms of natural
evidence, processes and laws.
Naturalism is also "the universe exists as science says it does".
nd definition of naturalism show strong link between science and natural evidence and law.
The 2

Science and naturalism refuse any absolute truth of any law.

2. Rationalism:
It is the practice of logical thinking.
Logic allows us to reason correctly.
Logical reasoning must be learned but it's too difficult to do this.
Most individuals do not reason logically because they have never learned it.
Logical reasoning must be learned in a formal educational environment, because it is a skill used
every day.
Most individuals believe something they wish, feel and hope that it is true although their false
emotions.
Logical reasoning is struggle with well.
It denies one's emotions to face reality which is painful.
Logical reasoning:

Best way to learn it was science math philosophy read write and history.
Science nowadays becomes the 4th method for learning logical reasoning.

Best way now: lots of writing by someone having critical thinking and skills.

3. skepticism:
Constant questioning of your beliefs and conclusions.
Scientists make sure of their beliefs by evidence.
Holding your beliefs protect you from self-deception or being deceived by others.
Continuous asking a bout truth and reliability of knowledge claims of yours or others holds your
walking in your beliefs direction.
You must predict the results of your beliefs away from objective reality.
Skeptics are unidiomatic:
Skeptics are open-minds because they add to their knowledge and beliefs every thing new but
supported by evidence.
It is necessary to decide if any situation we hear about natural world is right or not, to achieve critical
thinking, and not to stay closed-minds towards it and not even to say we accept it or not.
N.B: - Suggestion: giving answers through our belief and from mind.

- Scientific method: our experiments are done on nature to extract out conclusions.

Steps of scientific method on practice:

1. Find the problem:
During searching for solutions, it is forbidden to allow emotions to affect on them, leads to false
validity to their conclusions.
2. Collecting data to solve problem by observation:
Observation may be from your own experience (library), from past experiments, hard work and
techniques
3. Propose a solution or answer for the problem or question: "make suggestion = hypothesis"
Hypothesis informed, testable, predictive solution
4. Test the hypothesis before it being corroborated and given any real validity,
1st by experiment

2nd by making further observation

5. If the hypothesis fails in the test, it must be rejected and either cancelled or modified.
6. The final step of the scientific method is to district, support or cast doubt on a scientific theory.
Theory in science is not a guess or suggestion. It is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of natural
process that formed of corroborated hypothesis.

The nature of science

Science as observation:
The source of scientific knowledge from Mrs. Smith viewpoint, She said that:
1. The ancient Greek thought that scientific knowledge came from:
Divine revelation.
Thinking hard about thing while you're sitting.
2. Scientific knowledge comes form observation:
We start to be scientists when we learn how to observe things carefully (don't just look listen too, and
use your other senses).
3. Mistakes in science arise when people rely on authority or an accepted general views.
4. To be a real scientist you should be skeptical, open minded or empty minded.
5. The only motive for a scientist is the desire for truth.
N.B: - Mrs. Smith viewpoint is called empiricism: which is the view that knowledge comes from

experience.
- Her view was not exactly right.

Galileo and his telescope:

Galileo discovered by his telescope that there are four tiny spots of lights around Jupiter which slowly
changed there position relative to the planet they were moons going around Jupiter.
The importance of his discover that it was inconsistent with the view of the structure of the universe
(the view of official Christianity and Aristotle), this view says that the earth was motionless and at the
center of the universe, the sun, the moon, other planets and stars moved around the earth. They didn't
fall because of the presence of something invisible to us, transparent crystal glass sphere surrounding
the earth, on which they were imbedded.
Galileo's observation showed that there was something wrong. If Jupiter was imbedded on a crystal
sphere, it couldn't have moons going around it.
Galileo began to publish his views, but they were refused. He was summoned to Rome to face the
inquisition and he would die if he didn't deny his views.
After few years' bacon said that what Galileo saw couldn't be moon around Jupiter. Because of the
presence of seven holes in head, seven metals and seven planets.
The story end in 1992 by going that Galileo was right.

Falling bodies (Aristotle theory)

It states that the speed of something falling is directly proportional to its weight and inversely
proportional to the density (resistance to motion) of the air through which it falls.
Galileo noticed that the longer and further something fall, the faster it falls.
Galileo rejection of Aristotle theory:
If we connect two balls by chain, one ball is heavier than the other, and let them fall. According to
Aristotle theory, they would fall at an intermediate speed, slower than that of the heavy one when it
falls alone, but faster than the other ball.
If we consider the two balls and the chain as a large object which is heavier than either ball alone
this object must fall faster than either ball alone.
So there are two contradictory conclusions from one theory so it must be false.
Galileo reject the theory depend on distance because the body in the beginning of falling has fallen
zero distance and has zero velocity so that velocity can't depend on distance.
Galileo said that the velocity of a falling body increase simply in proportional to the duration of the
fall V=g*t and put it to test by observation.

Scientific knowledge needs:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Abstract reasoning
Observation
Explanation
Not to be an empty minded
Measurement
Past thinking (hypothesis)
Do experiment (empirical)

1. Abstract reasoning:
In old ages, this type of thinking was used to explain phenomena which are strange, and strange things
when seen by people and can't find answers for their presence. They give solutions away from
application or tests (divine revelation, thinking hard while you're sitting). This answer may be also
unbelievable.
Example: Ancient Greek, Aristotle theory of falling bodies, Galileo with his telescope.
N.B: abstract reasoning we can't depend on it to gain knowledge, but it must play even a small

role as a source for gaining knowledge as there are no scientific knowledge that can't start without
abstract reasoning.
2. Observation:
Phenomena talk about itself, when observation is the main source of scientific knowledge.
It's too important to observe and see everything that surrounds you especially strange things.
This is because the human nature always resists changes and things that are new.
Observation is always gained by our senses.
Mrs. Smith stated that we must observe in any aspect we face and this is associated by our
sense and being empty minded.
3. Explanation:
Don't observe and give notes without giving explanation supported by reasons for choosing or thinking
in this answers in order to let others decide to refuse or to accept your solutions or opinion.
Examples: Aristotle theory of heavenly bodies, Galileo and his telescope.
4. Do Experiment:
Experiment is too essential to admit your observation and get true results and explanation for new
theories.
Absence of experiment gives passive observation.
Example: rejection of Aristotle theory by Galileo.
5. Hypothesis:
We must have a past thought as an idea before doing any test or produce a solution that is predictable
to be a reliable solution and this reflexes and gives (at the end) the idea of being not empty minded.
Examples: Galileo told that there is probability of presence of relation between the speed of falling
body and its duration (time takes) to fall which become a reliable hypothesis.
6. Don't be empty minded:
Without hypothetical thinking or depending on past experiences and experiments, you must be empty
minded which is neglected in gaining scientific knowledge because there is no information can be used
to solve a problem or gaining scientific knowledge except from the past or by present hypothetical
thinking produced by yourself.

7. Measurement:
What do you see or conclude must be proved by numbers or by mathematical relations, science is
quantitative. By measurement we can differentiate between close similar results and reach to extreme
scientific facts.
N.B: - Explanation is a result of possessing a question from several observations towards a certain

phenomena
- You must be open minded when you face an observation, don't let your belief interfere in it
explanation.

Empirical knowledge
Definition: Knowledge obtained from scientific method, when this knowledge is well confirmed.
Science well confirmed empirical knowledge."
Knowledge: Daily life belief (proposition) + supported reason + test (empirical) = knowledge
Knowledge
Indirect
Produced from observation, not from tests and give several probabilities for the phenomena
to occur.
Direct
Gain knowledge by testing phenomena by senses.

Scientific methods: Way of translation or change from direct to indirect knowledge.

Although the direct method depends on experiment and can be tested, but it lacks the generalization
method that is usually present side to side with the hypothetic method in the indirect knowledge. So
the indirect knowledge is more important and used by empirical knowledge more than the direct one.
How can the observation justify us in believing empirical propositions whose
truth we can't directly confirm?
Hypothesis
2 conditions
Generalization
1 rule
2 conditions

1. Generalization:
Depend mainly on the repetition rule:
- When 2 associated events are repeated several times, they give the same relation.
- Example: If you heat water boils
Repetition rule is found in our daily life and the scientific development occurs according to this rule.
Repetition rule in the generalization method is an infinite process (endless) on its prolonged effect
it gives reversed relation apposite to the relation that occur at first which means that there are rules
become true or false (it is defect in generalization).
There must be 2 conditions for the generalization method to occur:
1st condition: the events or samples must be as large as possible because when samples increase,
generalization increase.

2nd condition: the samples are chosen at random "variable and different" to avoid biased samples
and to give different relations and results.
e.g.: - Scientists who discovered peptic ulcer said that this is formed from ulcer in wall of stomach,
when gastric HCl reaches nerve in ulcerated area, pain is felt and this disease is chronic cureless
(It was said that HCl is the cause of ulcer).
- On application several times (by repetition rule) it was discovered that a certain bacteria causes
this ulceration and this can be treated (by antibiotics) Curable (reverse result).
2. hypothesis:
When you face an event, phenomena or situation, you don't know how it happened hypothesis is
raised to explain this event in the form of solution is predicted to be true.
Hypothesis needs 2 conditions: repetition rule, correct hypothesis
Repetition rule: need in this method because it reflexes the person's experience in facing the
situation several times, so when relation or solution is predicted to be true it becomes of great
probability to solve the mystery of occurrence of event.
Correct hypothesis: When several hypotheses are raised, we must choose the simplest one that is
accepted logically with the event. This doesn't mean that the other probabilities far from mind are
false, but they may be true or false.
N.B: Repetition rule must not be necessarily applied because other probabilities that are not treated

or repeated before are keys for solving the reason of appearance of a certain event.

Induction, Deduction and Confirmation

Scientific method always needs an argument to support it.
Argument premises (evidence) + logical process = conclusion
Makes relation between premises and conclusion
Premises
Logical process
Examples: Bolty is fish
Conclusion
Fish lives in water
Bolty lives in water
Deductive
Whole Part
Inductive
Part Whole
Types of Argument

1. inductive process:

Old fashion definition: (wrong expression)

Testing a subgroup from a whole group gives a conclusion for the whole group.

Example: when a box filled of coins and few of them where chosen to observe carefully, it was found

that these few coins were gold.

When we say that if these few coins (subgroup) are gold, so the whole box is filled
with gold (whole group).
This type of argument (old definition) wants to tell us that if a conclusion is gained
from a subgroup, therefore the whole group must have the same conclusion like the
subgroup.

New corrected definition of inductive argument:

Testing subgroup from a whole group gives a reason to reach a conclusion.
New corrected definition differs from the old one in stating that: Pure truth or falsehood of inductive
argument can't be proved because the inductive argument produces values, these values may be: *
Strong
* Good
* Weak
Strength, goodness or weakness of a specific value is produced according to the nature of premises.
Premises are supported by 3 factors: "Premises act as samples"
Must be as large as possible.
Chosen at random.
Must be variable "large but different".
The presence of these 3 factors together supports any
conclusion arises from inductive argument by truth and
strength.
Example: - If 8 coins (premises) from 1000 coins
are gold, All coins in the box are gold (conclusion)
weak premises with weak conclusion
- If 600 coins from 1000 coins are gold, All coins in
the box are gold good premises with good
conclusion.
- If 950 coins from 1000 coins are gold, All coins in the box are gold strong premises
with strong conclusion.
N.B: - scientific method or facts are conclusions of inductive argument because it makes false

and true probability but not exact or proved.

- Any scientific method is reformed by the hands of the coming scientists.
- The present researchers and scientists must believe that there are still coins in the box that are
not tested.
- True premises True logical process False conclusion.

2. deductive process:

When premises are giving, logical process and conclusions are obtained.
One condition is needed to prove the definition of the deductive argument.
The more true and guaranteed are the premises, the more reliable is the conclusion.
Example: - Fish respire in water with gills.
- Bolty is a fish.
- Bolty respire in water with gills.
N.B: True premises True logical process True conclusion

* Why do we use the inductive argument and not the deductive although the deductive

guarantees a 100% result of truth?

Inductive argument depends on premises but it gives conclusion, which may be wrong or may be
right. i.e. it gives reasons to conclusion more than proving truth or falsehood of a conclusion.
Deductive argument guaranteed premises gives 100% true conclusion.
Problem occurs when there are large samples or numerous premises used by deductive argument, if
few numbers of these premises are lost and not tested, false conclusion will occur unreliable.
Using large numbers of premises in deductive argument and testing it one by one (as in the box of
coins) will be too difficult and costly, added to it that testing all samples needs unavailable
information.
It is enough in case of large samples to take a few samples that reflex a small conclusion of
probability of being true and never says at the same time that there is no false. i.e. good information
and this small conclusion is gained by the reasoning way of inductive argument.

Confirmation:

Confirmation of a statement is a reason to believe it.

Confirmation
Indirect
Needs evidence (inductive argument)
Direct
By observing

Science
Confirmation
Empirical evidence for true premises to prove that it is true.
Disconfirmation
Empirical evidence for false knowledge to prove that it is really false.