I The Method of Argument

The Method of Argumen third, experiment or observation is directly related to hypothesis, while in the case of the fourth, there is no direct relation between hypothesis and observation or experiment. But this difference loses its importance when we consider that however related or direct an experiment may be, the object perceived is, in any case, a purely external manifestation of reality. It is in no way the reality itself which is under observation. It is similar to a telephone number bearing an obvious relation to the owner of the telephone, but in no way itself being the owner of the telephone. It is as if here, too, what connects a scientist’s observation and experiment to the reality is a thing, which exists only in his mind that is, the capacity to make inferences, and not his ability to observe, or carry out experiments. That is why a scientist says, ‘Theories are mental pictures that explain known laws.’ Thus, although the turning on of a switch indicates that there is a special relationship between the switch and the bulb, in spite of this demonstration, the real relationship is invisible. It is again our powers of inference, which connect the switch and the bulb with each other. Therefore, even after conceding this observed relationship between the switch and the bulb, whether or not the scientific hypothesis regarding this connection is true or false will still remain debatable. Just as such doubts and the probability of error do not prevent a scientist from regarding prima facie findings as correct, and basing theories upon them, which in turn are regarded by him as correct, so philosophers and religious scholars may take the knowledge which derives from revelation, base theories upon it, and consider them correct. 1. Philosophers of Science, p. 244. 2. Clearer Thinking, pp. 112-13. 3. Richard Swann Lull, Organic Evolution, New York, Macmillan, p. 15. 4. Revolt Against Reason, pp. 111-12. 5. Ibid, p. 83. 6. Ibid, pp. 111-12.