Scientific Method for Wikimedians/Knowledge & its types



This is the first session of the course, scientific method for Wikimedians, starting from the first chapter, called Knowledge and its types. Before we start let me just remind you of the structure of this course in this course there are five main parts, today we will start from the part one knowledge and scientific method The first chapter in this part is called knowledge and its types there are also four other chapters in this

Outlines
this chapter includes five main sections:
 * 1) We will discuss the nature of the knowledge, Where discussing the origin of the word and its concept.
 * 2) We will clarify the source of the knowledge, the question here is: What is the source of the knowledge? where do we get it? what are the advantages and disadvantages of each type of source? and how we can know that?
 * 3) We will talk about the aspects of the knowledge, how we describe the knowledge, whether is there a way to tell if a piece of knowledge is true or false, and whether can we determine if our knowledge is corrupted or not.
 * 4) Next, we will jump to define science what is it? and how we can link it to knowledge.
 * 5) Finally, we will finish by describing some historical facts that cover aspects related to The History of Science and how our understanding of the concept of science developed over the years. Who are the people who helped us to achieve the status we have today? the definitions we have today about knowledge, and what are their contribution?

Regarding the method, I'm going to use in this chapter; when I'm talking about a concept, first of all, I will show you some definitions of the word in dictionaries please make attention that this is common sense and it's highly probable that this is not the scientific definition of the word after that I will show you the etymology of the world. Etymology means the origin of the words it's a branch of science that follow how this word developed over the year where it comes from and how we can link it to other words in the language we are studying. Finally, in the last step of this method, I will be trying to define the concept based on the knowledge we have obtained in the first two steps.

Nature of the knowledge
In the first section of this chapter the Nature of knowledge I will describe three different definitions of the word knowledge, I collected them from three different dictionaries. The first one is from Oxford Learners dictionaries and it reads:

"knowledge is the information understandings and skills that you gain through education or experience"

The second dictionary is the Cambridge Dictionary and reads:

"knowledge is information and facts about something you know"

The last dictionary is Merriam Webster Dictionary in this dictionary they Define knowledge:

"it is the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association."

please note that the first two dictionaries share the word information the second and the third share the word fact and the first and the third share the word experience, these dictionaries provide us with a common sense of the word.

To discuss more the word Knowledge itself. This word is an English word and we can trace it back to the Old English in the early 12th century, where it was used to mean "be able" to distinguish the word itself is constructed from two parts first is know and the second is Ledge the word Know can be traced back to a proto-indo-european root written as gno and it means "to know". The second part of the word ledge is from Unknown Origin and today, with our current knowledge in linguistics we cannot tell where does it come from specifically the root gno can be found in other English words such as agnostic ignorant and recognize, and in these three words the meaning of "to know" or "to distinguish" is highly clear.

After discussing the word and showing its etymology, then what is the exact definition of the knowledge?

Unfortunately, there is no exact definition of the word. Scientists and philosophers today have a huge disagreement about the definition of this word. We can agree that there is no consensus on the meaning of these words. Some philosophers also argue that there is no knowledge at all. Is this the problem? Why is it so hard to define a concept that we use every day in our lives, like knowledge?

In fact, the answer to this question is that the word knowledge has a diverse range of meanings.


 * 1) For example, it can be used to describe "theoretical information", and this is called know-that knowledge For example, if I told you that the WW2 ended in 1945, This is a know-that knowledge.
 * 2) The second type of knowledge is called practical knowledge; it is referred to as know-how knowledge. For example, if you know how to cook or play football, this is also a kind of knowledge, and these two examples are categorized as know-how knowledge.
 * 3) The last type of knowledge is called personal knowledge, and it is the knowledge that is obtained through acquaintanceship. For example, if I told you that Lionel Messi is the greatest player of all time, this is a type of knowledge that is completely personal, based on personal feelings and personal estimation of the situation.

The difference between theoretical and personal knowledge is that in theoretical knowledge it's highly probable that people will arrive at the same piece of information in the end. For example, if we go back to World War II example, almost everyone on the planet accepts and agrees that World War II ended in 1945. However, if we ask the question, Who is the greatest player of all time? we can have a lot of answers, and all these answers cannot be proven right or wrong; they are generally based on personal understanding of the situation because there are different types of knowledge and different meanings of the world. The definition of knowledge is a complex task, and today, with all the technology that we have, we still have no solid definition of it. So now that we understand the nature of knowledge and the different meanings of the word.

Indoctrination
The first source of knowledge is called indoctrination, it is when you provide people with ideas, attitudes, and information. For example, if I told you that Napoleon invaded Egypt in 1789, or Canada is located north of the United States, this is an example of indoctrination.

Problems related to indoctrination
This source of knowledge is normally associated with a set of problems:
 * 1) Any information obtained in this way can be false. I did not see Napoleon invading Egypt, and neither did you, so I could be just telling you a big lie.
 * 2) The problem related to this source of knowledge is that it can be inaccurate. For example, if we talk about the example of Napoleon. I am just giving you a year, I'm not telling you in which month, on which day, and from the piece of information I'm giving you you have no way to go further.
 * 3) The indoctrination is a be easy fiction. For example, if I told you that Frodo Baggins destroyed the one ring in the Mount Doom in Mordor. This is a piece of information that is completely fictional and is take is driven from a fictional work written by J.R.R. Tolkien;
 * 4) This has led us to the fourth problem related to this source of knowledge. It is very hard to verify how can I that Napoleon really exist but Frodo pagans did not. However, you should not think that there is no way to do that. Historians have their own method, which is called the Historical Method to verify all historical data we have. The only problem is that using this method requires people who have skills in this field, and mature or normal people who don't have these skills will find it very hard to use this method, or they will not understand how it works.
 * 5) The last and fifth problem related to this source of knowledge is that it can be easily manipulated, and I just want to refer to the theory of conspiracy related to COVID-19, which is a clear example of how information can be manipulated if the source of the information is the indoctrination.

Observation
The second source of knowledge is called observation, which means looking, hearing, or using senses to identify patterns of a natural phenomenon; sometimes it can be also human phenomena. For example, everything we know about the stars before their incense comes true from observation.

For generations, people have looked to the sky and noted what they have seen. They were able to detect patterns, and these patterns help them a lot in different fields, for example, in sailing, good ships in the Antics or in the Middle Ages, they were able to detect directions based on the pattern of stars. Another example is related to the civilizations that lived next to rivers. These civilizations were able to observe the river floats during specific periods of the year, which helped them determine what the agricultural seasons were and when to prepare for them.

The main perspective related to this source is that it is personal; this means that two people might be looking at the same phenomenon and they might observe different things, or they might observe the same thing in different ways.

Another property of observation is that people who are observing should not interfere with the phenomena they are observing; they should be out of it, And just observing it as in indoctrination.

Problems related to observation
Observation also has some problems:
 * 1) The first of these problems is that it's completely based on sense, and as we all know, sense can be easily fooled.
 * 2) The second problem is that it's personal, and people can be biased, so if someone observes something, the notes he takes are going to be biased also.
 * 3) The last and third problem related to observation is that it can be dangerous. It can be dangerous because you need to observe. For example, if you want to observe a volcano, you need to go and look at it as closely as possible, and this can be dangerous.

experimentation
The third source of knowledge is experimentation. It is defined as the process of identifying patterns of a human-made phenomenon using senses or devices. Because we made the phenomenon, we know when it happened and how it's going to happen, so we can prepare and create devices that we are going to use to observe it. By doing so, we are depending not only on our senses; but also on our devices. Examples of experiments covered a very wide range; they could vary from a teacher making an experiment in a chemistry class in high school to two tests created by states to see how strong their nuclear weapons.

One important property of the experiment is that it is repeatable. This means we can repeat the same experiments as much as we like, and this is because the experiment is human-made. Additionally note that the human here is part of the process, unlike observation where the human is playing a passive role. The human in experimentation is playing an active role by creating the phenomena and trying to measure parameters using senses or devices as with other sources of knowledge.

Problems related to expermentation
the experiment is also associated with several problems:


 * 1) It needs preparation. Before we create an experiment, we need to detect what we are going to measure, what are parameters to measure, and how we are going to do that. What kind of meters do we need to use?
 * 2) The second problem of experimentation, which is also shared with observation experimentation, is personal experience. Personal experience can be biased, and when the person who is doing the experiment is already biased, the results will also be biased. This is not a good sign, and we can always remove the bias by following a strong method and clear steps.
 * 3) The last problem related to the experiment is that it has moral aspects. When we create a test that includes humans, animals, or maybe even the planet itself, we have an ethical responsibility. For example, if humans are part of the experiment I'm doing, these humans have rights, and the scientist who is doing the experiment should always respect their rights. The same goes if the subjects of the tests are animals. We cannot be cruel to animals, and we have a set of ethical rules we should follow when we do tests on animals. For example, we should not cause unnecessarily great pain to the animals, and normally when the tests conducted on animals create permanent damage, these animals should be killed at the end of the test. The same is valid for the earth itself. For example, if we make a nuclear test, we should understand that we are polluting our planet and destroying the environment in the area where the test is taking place. All these moral aspects should be taken into account when we are developing the experiment itself. Moral aspects will be well addressed in Part 3 of this course. There is a specific chapter that covers the major ethical aspects related to the research. The first is perception, which means how do we get to realize what is going on?

Observation Vs.	Experimentation
The first criterion is perception, which means how do we get to realize what is going on?The second criterion is neutrality. It means what the position of humans is when the source of knowledge is used. The third criterion described the human role when the source of knowledge is used. The fourth criterion is that it is possible to repeat the same process to get knowledge. The last one is, Can we verify the knowledge we got regarding the first criterion? Both observation and experiment use sensory This means that we need to use our senses to get and understand the knowledge we have already obtained. Please note that some devices might be used, but in the end, we need to use our senses, maybe to read the results we have or to hear them before we can analyze them.

Regarding neutrality, both observation and experiment might be biased; the two are human-based, and humans can be biased, and these biases can go on to the process itself and then to the results regarding the repeatability.

Normally, the phenomena we observe naturally cannot be repeated. Usually, it's periodic. For example, a river floats once a year, and we can repeat the same observation once a year, but we cannot, in human measures, make the river float again and again to make our observation. On the other hand, experiments are repeatable because they are human-made; we create the phenomenon to measure different aspects of it, and because we are the creators of this phenomenon, we can easily repeat it. Regarding the last criterion, normally knowledge updated from observation is hard to verify because we cannot recreate it to check all possible parameters. On the other hand, the experiment is very easy to verify because, again, it's a human-made phenomenon. I will repeat it and then check and verify all the parameters we are looking for. We can say that the knowledge obtained from the experiment is more reliable than the knowledge obtained from observation.

Reasoning
The fourth type of source of knowledge is called reasoning. Reasoning can be defined as the process of using logic consciously to draw conclusions in order to obtain knowledge.Here are two examples of reasoning. I will start with these two statements:


 * 1) All French people speak French 
 * 2)  Francois is a French 

From these two statements, I can draw the following conclusion: "Francois speaks French because all French people speak French, and Francois is French."

Please note that I started with the general case and went to a really specific case in the second example. I will start by making the following statements:
 * 1)  First I will start with aluminum, I will say that aluminum expands with heat.
 * 2)  I will go further to say that iron expands by heat and
 * 3)  After that, I will repeat that to all Metals I know.

from all these statements I can draw the following conclusion

"All Metals expand with heat"

please note that here I started with the parts and I ended with the whole. Reasoning is completely mental, we do not need to use devices we do not need to use our senses we just need to use our minds. Reasoning also should always create new knowledge. This knowledge might be valid and true but also it can be false or corrupted these aspects are going to be discussed in the following section.

Now I will go further and say that iron expands by heat, and after that, I will repeat that for all metals. I know that from all these statements, I can draw the following conclusion: All metals expand with heat. Please note that here I started with the parts and I ended with the whole reasoning being completely mental. We do not need to use devices. We do not need to use our senses. We just need to use our minds. Our reasoning also should always create new knowledge. This knowledge might be valid and true, but it can also be false or corrupted. These aspects are going to be discussed in the following section.

Problems related to reasoning
However, the most important thing is that reasoning will always create new knowledge, and as with the other three sources of knowledge, reasoning is also associated with some problems.
 * 1) The first is that it's hard and you need to train a lot to use it. The reasoning is completely based on logic, and the logic needs to be really strong to be able to draw a good conclusion from initial statements. You need to study the logic carefully so that it does not fall into fallacy, and the same goes on if you want to draw a general statement starting from parts.
 * 2) The second problem is that if you don't master logic and try to draw conclusions, reasoning can be easily misleading and you will gain new knowledge, but it will be corrupted and not valid.

Types of reasoning
Reasoning can be divided into two main types:

1. The first type is called deductive reasoning, it focuses mainly on specifity. In this type of reasoning, we start from general statements and try to draw conclusions that cover only parts. Let me give you another example. Let's start with these two statements. The first statement is that the sum of all three angles is 180. Please note the word all here means that we start from the whole part the second statement is ABC is atrium from these two statements I can deductively and using reason I can draw the following conclusion the sum of ABC angles is 180.

Again here please note that I started from the case that covers the whole and I draw a conclusion that is really specified to a specific part.

2. the second part of reasoning is called the inductive reasoning and it's the opposite of the deductive it's mainly focusing on generalization.

In this reasoning we start by parts from the statements that are special and we go to generalize the knowledge we have to cover the whole and to understand it let me just give you another example imagine that we have a box where there is 50 balls

the balls are identity in all properties except of colors the idea here is that we don't know how many black or white balls there are. But we know that there are 50 balls what I'm going to do here is I'm going to draw up 10 balls and the ball I draw were eight black and two white.

please note that here I did not draw up the 50 poles I just took a sample of 10 balls what I'm going to do now is that I'm going to generalize the case I have to cover the whole here I'm going to draw the following conclusion 80 percent of balls in this box are black and 20 of them are white please note here that I start from the parts and I ended talking about the whole.

brief
by arriving to this point we have ended talking about the sources of the knowledge and before we start talking about the aspects of the knowledge let me just sum up everything we talked about until now there are four sources of knowledge the first one is indoctrination the second is observation the third is experiment and the force is reasoning the first one indoctrination it's very hard to verify and it can easily create false knowledge the second and the third end up talking about observation and experiment rely heavily on senses observation is done to Natural phenomena however experiment is based on human-made phenomena the fourth source of the knowledge is reasoning it's completely mental but it's hard to use because you need to master logic before you will be able to use it correctly to draw up a valid and good conclusion

Aspects of knowledge
So far, we understand that knowledge is complex to describe or define. This is because it has several aspects. It cannot be described using yes or no this is simply not sufficient; we need to use a spectrum to describe each of its aspects.

In this context, spectrum means a range where values are distributed on a decimal scales; knowledge has five aspects: credibility, details, complexity, abundance and the skills needed to understand or use itregarding.

Credibility
Credibility means how much trustworthy the piece of information is knowledge. It can be low or high or in between, the two values regarding the degree of details. It means how much specific this piece of information is. It well characterized. The piece of information can be general or specific or in between the two.

Complexity
It means how much sophisticated the piece of information is. Is it easy to understand? do we need to decompose the idea into small piece of information in order to understand it? or simply a knowledge can be simple or complex or in between the two regarding  the degree of abundance. please note that this is not for a piece of information itself to understand this property you need to have a set of piece of information.

we can ask the following question: how rich this set of information are? are they repeated? regarding the abundance a set of piece of information can include few knowledge, or they can be plentiful.

Needed skills
The needed skill to understand or use this information or knowledge. then if we ask, do you need to be an expert in the domain in order to be able to use or to understand this piece of information? it can be the level needed to handle the knowledge as it can be a mature or professional or in between the two. So if we want to describe a piece of information we need to use something like the spiderweb shown on the right side; It's called RADAR diagram : it is pentagon shaped on each of its vertexes there is one aspect of the knowledge the line that linked the vertex to the center of the  polygon which is called circum radius in geometry has a scale of 10.

the smallest the value the smaller the effect of the aspect it  represents and vice versa. This means that the larger the value the larger the influence of the aspect it represents is for example the piece of informatio in the  figure shown on the left side of the screen has the following value  for the skill needed it has nine for a creditability it has seven  for the level of detail it has four and for complexity it has five.

Finally for the abundance it has three. please note that the advantage of this diagram is that the axes are independent. This means that a piece of information can have the value of 10 on a given aspect; at the same time, it can have zero on another aspect yes this is possible and additionally using the radar diagram make it easy to be displayed.

Knowledge and science
Following the same method as before, We will start by showing different definitions collected from dictionaries. Firstly, Oxford Learners Dictionary defines the science entry init reads as follow: "it is knowledge about the structure and behavior of the natural and physical world based on facts that you can prove for example by experiments the same injury"

In Cambridge Dictionary reads as follow: "science is the study of the physical world by collecting information and testing it"

Finally in Merriam-Webster Dictionary the entry reads as follows: "science is knowledge or a system of knowledge covering General truces or the operation of the general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method"

if we look to the word science itself we can trace it back to the mid 14th century it was used to mean to know, the word itself comes from proto-indo-european root "skei-", it means to cut to split or to divide the same meaning can be found in several English word today.For example, conscience it is the inner feeling or voice that act as Guide to the likeness or wrongness in one's behavior. Another word is schism it means a split or a strong division between strongly opposite parties and it's usually caused by belief or opinion. A third example is the word schizophrenia and it is a known long-term mental disorder today it is thought that the original meaning of the word science come from distinguishing what is known from what it is not with all that in hand.

we can ask the following question what is the exact definition of science? there is several definitions of this word, where all of them agree in the meaning, but of course they differ in the style. For me, I like the definition proposed by Edward Wilson in his book Consilience: the unity of the knowledge it reads: "science is the organized systemic Enterprise that gathers knowledge about the world and condenses the knowledge into testable laws and principles"

please note that the words systematic and testable are the properties of science and we will discuss them in details in the following lines. based on the definitions we had we can now tell that not all knowledge are scientific. For a piece of knowledge to be scientific it needs to be created in a systematic way and to be testable systematic way means that the method with which we create the knowledge is clear repeatable and usually consists of steps on the other hand testable means that the methd  can be verified everyone must be able to repeat the steps  under the same circumstances and eventually  he must get the same results to understand this  let me give you the following example imagine a large Amphitheater in University.

we have two persons stand in front of it, the first will ask the following question: "how many seats are there?"

If the second person answer as follows: "based on my experience I think there are 700 seats". This answer is not systematic; we do not know how the number 700 was created. It is also not testable; as there is no way to prove that the answer is right or wrong. So we can conclude that the answer or the knowledge we got here is not scientific.

On the other hand, if the answer was: "you need to find out how many lines are there, and then to multiply it by the number of seats with each row." Here we can say that the knowledge we obtain is systematic; because we have a way to find the number of the seats. Also it is testable; well if you have time you can go and try it yourself.

So the knowledge we got here is scientific. What is good about this example is that it shows that science can help improve the knowledge we have.

for example, in this specific scenario once you start counting; you will find out that there is another problem the numbe of seats in each row is not the same so your knowledge will have a low level of accuracy but what you have to do is to change the method you already have it.

you need to include the newly obtained information about the number of the seats and the answer you get will be more accurate, and this is how science work.

Relationship between reality and facts
reality is what exists as it is it does not matter if we know that or simply do not a great example of these are the radio waves since ever human exists on Earth there were radio waves. However, our senses are not capable to detect them. thus, for centuries, we were not aware of their existence. Although they are real and this is reality.

Nevertheless. we were able to enhance our understanding of reality as our Technologies advanced. we were able to create devices that can sense these waves. Furthermore, we were able to use them and today. All our communication systems are based on Radiowaves. What we have talked about make us understand that the scientific facts are our best understanding of the reality and because our understanding is not complete.

The scientific facts can be wrong or inaccurate, they are not fixed but rather changeable, the more we advance the more our scientific understanding of the world will become close to the reality

Second example is about the shape of the Earth, we know now that it is near spherical. it was always like that even when we were not there, or when we were not able to understand that. on the other hand, our understanding develops over the years:
 * 1) First we thought that Earth is flat, this was the fact for centuries and many people killed proving that fact.
 * 2) as we advanced in time and Technology we were able to detect with no doubts that Earth is spherical and again for years this was the fact that everyone believed in
 * 3) as we Advanced more we were able not only to discover but also to see with our payer eyes that the Earth is nearly spherical

please note that when we say that Earth is flat this is not a scientific fact. simply because its not testable.

on the other hand the fact that Earth is spherical and that it's nearly spherical are scientific; they are systematic and we do teach the math behind that. The student in schools and universities every day the two facts are also testable. In fact our all communication systems such as GPS or a living proof that Earth is nearly spherical it as not those systems will not work at least from mathematical point of view if you are interested to know more about facts especially the scientific please refer to the video that cover chapter 2 in this course it's called the  cientific facts

Historical background
finally let's talk about history relate to science and scientific thinking, on the figure x, there is a timeline with two reference points; the oldest is around 3500 BCE, and this is the date estimated for the creation of the first writing system in the human history why this state is important.

Knowledge could only be stored to a very small extent until writing became a possibility. It primarily relied on memory in people. Since there is no written record of humankind prior to the invention of writing, we actually know very little about it. The Renaissance, which began approximately 1500 CE, serves as a second point of comparison.

Because science with a contemporary understanding of the world emerged during the Renaissance, it is significant in human history. Please be aware that this does not imply that signs have never existed before. In the past, There have always been scientific attempts to explain events in many civilizations that are thousands of kilometers apart.

However, the attempts themselves were not organized in a systematic manner; there was always a brilliant mind here and there, but science was limited to a specific person and there was never a method to fall. Thus, we can safely assume that in the first five thousand years of human history, the non-scientific thinking dominated, while scientific thinking has been dominant in the last 500 years.

It is approximately 10 percent of our known history, yet advancement in technology is significantly more. Beyond this number, to simplify things with simple words, non-scientific thinking focus on the results; it doesn't matter how; on the other hand, scientific thinking is primarily concerned with the methodology or technique; let me give you a small example of a great identification.

From a non-scientific standpoint:

$ (a+b)^2 = a^2+b^2+2ab $

However, from a scientific standpoint, this is only the way and you can replace a and b with any values you can imagine and you will get nice round results. What you consider basic today was unimaginable 700 years ago.

Ibn al-Haytham
The first figure we will discuss today is al-hazan or Ibn al-Haytham. Al-Hasan was a pioneer in the field of scientific methods. resided in Bosra and Cairo in the 10th century; both cities are in contemporary Iraq and Egypt, respectively. At the time, Islamic civilization was at its pinnacle. and al-Hasan himself was involved in Fatimid Caliphate, but Al-Hassan is best renowned for his work in optics rather than politics. He discovered the fundamental principle of photography; in fact, the word camera can be traced directly back to him in Arabic "Qumra" which means chamber or room. and the light was captured and retreated as the source of the image in this chamber designed by Al-Hasan.

In his work, Al-hasan also worked on the scientific method. He wrote, "The duty of the man who investigates the writings of the scientists if learning the truth is his goal is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads he should attack what he reads from every side he should also suspect himself as he performed his Critical examination of it so that he may avoid failing into either Prejudice or leniency".

Francis Bacon
Jumping five centuries forward, we are now in the renaissance, to be introduced to the Lord High Counselor of England, Lord Francis Bacon. Although he had a remarkable political career, Bacon is most recognized for his book Novum Organum. The book, as the title suggests, is written in Latin, and the name in English reads "the new system", "the new way", or even "the new machine".

This is a clear allusion to Aristotle's renowned work, "Organon" Please keep in mind that at the time, Aristotle's way of thinking or the way he perceived the word was dominant. Although Aristotle was a brilliant philosopher, he had weird views about optics, biology, and women. The problem with Aristotle was simply a lack of observation, experimentation, or critical thought, which, according to Bacon, was the foundation of the new science, for example. According to Aristotle: "women have fewer teeth than men."

This is incorrect and easily debunked. Just look into the bot's mouth and count well, Bacon, and like Al Hassan, he emphasized reasoning and observation, and he also noted that the observer should be impartial.

Bacon used the word Idol to describe his idea an idol is a thing that is loved and admired very much, he was able to Define four idols and they are :
 * 1) the idols of the tribe
 * 2) the idols of the cave
 * 3) the idols of the market
 * 4) the idols of the theater

In the following lines, we will briefly describe Idols one by one.

The idols of the tribe
The first group of Idols are the idols of the tribe for bacon, the tribe being humankind, hence these Idols are shared by all humans. The tendency to overgeneralize and leap to conclusions, as well as the impact of emotions on judgments.

The idols of the cave
The cave idols are the second group of idols. Plato's Cave is referenced in this cave.

Years before Bacon, Plateau used the cave to characterize a specific person; he provided an illustration of how our perceptions of reality may be quickly and easily demonstrated to be false or misleading. As seen in the image on the right side of the screen, there is a large fire behind the wall and people moving shapes in front of it. Plato asks people to imagine a group of prisoners chained to a wall inside a cave. Their faces are always toward the walls of the cave, and the prisoners can only see the shadows of the moving shapes; this is a great example of reality or facts, which are the shapes and to our understanding of them, which is the Shadows The distinction between the Shadow and the Shape corresponds to the distinction between reality and fiction.

our understanding of it unfortunately we cannot go further with the story of Plato's Cave because this is how the scope of this course however this is a brief introduction to Plato's Cave because prisoners here have never seen before a horse for example they will start judging what they are watching based on their feelings and this will create barrier between them and the reality examples of these Idols are all the extreme thinking forms of the human's erspective and ideas these include atheism nationalism socialism had gone we all have this extreme friend that is not capable of seeing the world but only from his narrow perspective another example if you are following football is  The relationship between fans of Lionel Messi and Real Madrid or fans of Cristiano Ronaldo and Barcelona if you support me see you will highly probably automatically dislike do not agree or hate Cristiano Ronaldo or Real Madrid or anything positive related to them and vice versa if you support Cristiano Ronaldo you will highly probaly automatically dislike do not agree or hate Leonard Messi or Barcelona or anything positive related to them.

The Idols are the market
The idols of the market is the society and this barrier is a direct result for interaction between people in public places. Bacon argued that this is but a result to the use of language sometimes the words are too simple thus they are misleading. For example, the word Earth can have several meanings the planet or the surface over which we stand the same goes for the word home it can be used to refer to the apartment where you live to the place where you were born simply to where you feel that you belong To the last example is not a word but rather a question where are you from take a moment and think about itthe answer Spectrum for this question is quite largeit can be a street a neighborhood a cityor even a country bacon said that the use of ambiguous General wordsis a barrier in front of good reasoning this is true because it's simply Misleading additionally this is also true if the language used is also too complex like the one used by philosophers or scientists the knowledge then is kept limited to this group simply you need a high level of skills to be able to treat it and this is why do we need popularization of science to break this barrier for example if you look to the image shown on the Screen you can see this nice solid I'm sorry but I cannot pronounce its name correctly frankly I will not dare to and I'm sure that thebarrier is created once you see the name

The Idols of the theater
the last group of Idols are the idols of the theater for bacon theater is the human heritage and actors on it are the great figures we should never a accept anything because it's said to be like this we need to test it a great example of that is the Pythagorean Vision Theory for centuries it was believed that the human eye emit irradiation toward the object and then human can see it it might look naive in today's logic but believe it or not this was the mainstream fact for hundreds of years people just believe it because great figures acceptedalthough it's easy to prove it wrong all you need is to go to a dark room and you will be blind

René Descartes


the last figure we will address today is René Descartes. Descartes was born in the last 16th Century he is known for a very famous sentence Foreign which can be translated to English as I think therefore I am Descartes refused to accept any ideas that is not tested in his writings he always insisted on the doubt and critical thinking he is also known for his book Method which can be translated to English the scores on the method in his book he created a scientific method for the research he described his method as follows the true method by which to arrive at the knowledge Descartes method is based on four rules they are Substitute analyzes Synthesis and total induction let us discuss them one by one the certitude or the doubt rule means never to accept anything without verifying it no matter how much you believe in it or how people admire it Descartes wanted researchers to doubt everything once at least the second rule is analyzes it means to divide the problem int smaller and simpler problems

Then solve each of them and use the reason to find the solution for the original Problem this means that you have to put all yourefforts to define the problem and understanding it then the solution will arrive Automatically looks familiar just hear what Albert Einstein said 400 years after Descartes if I have one hour to save the world I will spend 55 minutes defining the Problem and the last five minutes solving it we have already touched the third rule Synthesis when I said use reason to find the solution of the original problem based on the solution of the smaller problems well this is called synthesis and it is what all researchers use when they are writing their thesis or research papers finally there is the total induction it means repeat back again and again and as Al Hassan said attack your own ideasjust to be sure that they are solid andyou have not missed anything

Well so now you have it knowledge and its Types if you arrive here this is the end of chapter one in the next chapter we will be talking about the scientific facts see you soon this was Michelle buckney recording for the scientific method for wikimedians chapter 1 knowledge and its types