Empirical Theory example essay topic

Q) What is an empirical piece of work and how can it be justified? In answering this question I believe that first off it is necessary to have a definition of what empiricism actually is in the context. The dictionary states that empirical knowledge is gained only through personal experiences through numerous ways and means including trials and experiments. Classical empiricism or empirical theory can only exist if suitable examples or information have been obtained. Empirical works therefore differ from a theoretic approach substantially.

The key difference being that empirical works have answers defined without questioning, through experiences and fact. Theories, however, differ because they can be challenged and are not necessarily based on evidence, but ideology. Empirical thought works in a similar way, but its fundamental principle is to gather up the evidence and then develop from that. The basic idea behind empiricism is that knowledge can be derived through careful observation and cataloging of phenomena and extrapolating laws or principles from these observations. Even though empiricism is a Western concept and is loaded with enlightenment baggage, it is, in fact a cross-cultural phenomenon. Its origins in the West lie in their most developed form in the philosophy of Aristotle, who reacted against the abstractions of Plato and other key philosophers by developing a more or less universal system of intellectual enquiry.

When investigating a subject, he would next observe as much phenomena related to the inquiry that he could and derive laws from his observations, and then use those laws against the previous authorities. But the area where empiricism most rapidly developed in Ancient Greece was in the field of medicine, which based most of its knowledge on empirical observation of the causes and courses of diseases. It is from these sources ultimately that brings rise to enlightenment empiricism. To make this possible several things need to occur.

When renaissance humanism focussed more attention on individual human beings and their experience, as evidence by the statement of Leonardo da Vinci in his treatise on painting that 'experience' is the parent of all knowledge, then the capacity of experience to give knowledge began to be explored in greater detail. The result was the steady development of experimental science. In simple terms an experiment can be called a 'controlled experience', this control allows the experience to be repeated in exactly the same way. In this way, experience can be shared, that is, others can verify the truth of the experience by repeating it. Western empiricism was built on the idea of a mechanistic universe, the universe both physically and socially was eventually conceived of as a vast machine whose principles of operation could be grasped by the human intellect without recourse to divine or superstitious explanations. Correspondingly, each aspect of the universe operated in a different manner, the machine of physical phenomena operated differently from the machine of social phenomena.

Empirical science in the West, then, also involved the separation of bodies of knowledge one from the other. Physics could not explain politics, ethics could not explain chemistry and so on. This separation of areas of knowledge one from the other is perhaps the single most important aspect of enlightenment empiricism for it allowed knowledge in each area to develop very rapidly. As mentioned, throughout history, empiricism has had a substantial impact on many political thinkers and theorists. Two of the key political thinkers I will be concentrating on later in the essay are David Hume and Karl. R Popper.

Both have made a substantial impact into many international theories and paradigms throughout international relations history. Empirical works exist to falsify many of these theories and provide us with a true existence. However, at the same time the works are also there to provide a stepping stone for theories to develop. David Hume was a Scottish philosopher who is responsible for much of the modern development of scepticism and empiricism. According to Hume, we only very rarely have rational justifications for the things we believe to be matters of fact. There is simply no way for us to actually examine the external world - all we have is our own psychology and our reactions to what we experience.

Instead, much of what we claim as knowledge can actually be traced back to custom or habit, not empirical demonstration. He did not just apply this to statements about objects, but also to reality itself, concluding that our statements about ourselves, our shared world, and our reality itself can be based on very little that is rationally justified. As a result, he argued that an extreme form of scepticism is the only possible justified position to take. Hume's sceptical critique of knowledge was also applied to both religion and morality.

According to Hume, our moral principles are not actually based upon any objective, moral facts but are instead driven by human emotions, desires and passions. We cannot justify any particular ethical claims by relying upon statements of objective fact and must rather argue from human needs. Empirical theory possesses many qualities, firstly is that it is very descriptive. Because of its factual base it is relatively easy to understand or predict. The theories it creates provide us with clear detail on the way we operate around the globe. The statements that the works produce are about international relations and in doing this create many frameworks.

Empirical work uses its facts and data to provide scientific evidence for international relations. Through these findings key theories have been created that have dominated international thought. Notable examples of this are Positivism and Realism. The justification for the theories that it creates come about because of the factual evidence and backing that highlights how the world actually is. Empirical work cannot be justified if there is no reference to experiences or observed objects. It is because of this that empirical work is separated from many key theories amongst international relations that are ideologically based.

A piece of work is not empirical if it is an opinion and not a fact. In order for empirical work to be justified, in depth research has to occur. If enough evidence is obtained then the theory can be proven factual, without this it cannot be empirical. Karl R. Popper, who was never a scientist but was fascinated by the new quantum theory, overcame the Human critique by altering what empiricism and induction meant in the scientific method. Popper posited that the essential characteristic of empiricist methods was falsifiability, or framing empiricist statements in a manner where they could be tested or refuted as false. For Popper, empiricism rested upon proving what was so, thereby growing human knowledge by removing those theories shown to be incorrect and leaving those more likely to be true.

Popper acknowledged Hume's critique; a single instance could indeed refute an inductive statement, but what mattered was finding these instances and using them to reduce the number of available theories, leaving the remainder to be further developed and tested. This 'trial and error's elf-critical approach would fine-tune theories and was essential for the growth of human knowledge There are several standards that I believe an empirical piece of work must meet. Firstly, it must be testable, do observations support or fail it. It must be logically sound with assumptions that are compatable. The work should be understood by everybody so it can be used, therefore it must be communicable. It must be general so that the work can be applied to different places at different times and places.

All pieces of empirical work display these characteristics at different degrees. Due to the factual basis and ignorance of new ideas or lack of challenges, empirical work is often subject to criticism. Many theorists have challenged its work because of the idea that there can only be a theoretical understanding with the use of facts, data or legal statements. One of the key criticisms is that empirical work is too general in that its base of vast degrees of empirical data was not actually what may be true.

Many critiques will say that empirical works are limited because of its predictability and lacking of explanation. Basing the entire research on observation is clearly limiting because it does not bring into account social factors and therefore holds little reality.