مقالة قيمة التجربة الجزء 1 موجهة لكل الشعب""من بيكون إلى بوبر: كيف تشكلت فكرة 'التجربة مقياس للعلم "

[Music] Yes. [Music] We are trying to approach the topic of experimentation from the perspective of science, or what is called the value of experimentation. First, for the Baccalaureate 2025, Experimental Sciences and Mathematics, this is considered among the essays that we have placed among the basic proposals for Baccalaureate 2025. And for management and administration, the topic also did not come from management and administration. And for technical professions, the thing that is common between you, all branches, in this topic, and this is directed to all branches of the Baccalaureate, all languages, literature and philosophy, management, technical, and even experimental and mathematical sciences. This topic exists for everyone, but its importance varies from one branch to another. The thing that you see, everyone, is written above, "Peace be upon you." It is written above, "An inferential essay," and below it, "It did not appear in the Baccalaureate." What does that mean? First, an inferential essay means that this topic, everyone, is not a direct essay, but rather it is inferential from one of the elements of the lesson. We all know that the experimental method contains what? Observation, hypothesis, experiment, and law, right? Observation has no problem. Hypothesis has a problem. We saw whether the hypothesis is necessary or unnecessary. We go to the third step, the name of the experiment. We did not do the hypothesis. Today, we will emphasize the value of the experiment. There are those who support that the experiment is the basis of all science, and without experimentation, science is nullified. And there are those who consider that there are many sciences, but they do not depend on what? On experimentation. So, there are two contradictory positions regarding what? Regarding the value of the experiment. One supports the experiment, and the other agrees. Are we in agreement so far? Yes. The question, how will this question come, everyone? This question asks, is the experiment the only measure of science? Look at me carefully. Our question is about the topic of the value of the experiment. Second, is the experiment the primary measure of science? Or it might say the only measure. Right. When you hear the question, "Is the experiment the primary measure of science?" This means the direction will say the experiment is the primary measure of science. Come here, primary measure or unique measure. Notice, everyone, this term is very important. A unique measure means that there is no science without experimentation. All sciences involve experimentation. Right. The second position, and this, everyone, must be clarified so that the student does not study some of them. It is not the experiment that is the unique measure of science. This means that the second position has acknowledged that the experiment is a measure of science, but it is not the only one. The unique measure means that no scientist says that we do not need experimentation in science, or that it is not a measure of science. This is impossible. And this reminds us of the essay on determinism. What did we say? The first says determinism, and the second says determinism. But it says determinism. So, here, it's the same. The first position says by experimentation alone, and the second position says, it says that experimentation exists, but it is not the only part. There are other methods that we can use, and we will have what? And we will have science. Do we understand? Before we start with the structure of the essay, the first thing we must know is what is the definition of the experiment? Moment, the definition of the experiment is the re-creation of a phenomenon experimentally. Did you hear, everyone? Experimentally. Does that mean experimentally? Correct. It means we will do it in the lab. This is the first thing. The second thing is under artificial conditions. Opposite of artificial is natural. Right. So, it is already present in nature as it is, but when we recreate it in the lab, we will put artificial conditions on it. Right. So, it is under artificial conditions, set by whom? By the experimenter. This experimenter can be what? The scientist can be the researcher, can be you in the lab, can be your teacher when he is in that experiment. All of them here are waiting for the experiment. So, any experimenter waiting is conducting an experiment. What does he do? He recreates the phenomenon in the lab under artificial conditions. All of this, everyone, is for the purpose of verifying the truth of the hypothesis. Meaning, before the experiment, we put a hypothesis, or hypotheses, not just one hypothesis. When we put a set of hypotheses, who will decide for us, everyone? The experiment. So, what do we do? We go and do the experiment to confirm the truth of the hypotheses. If we find that our experiment is correct, we have reached the law. If we find that our experiment is not correct, we go back to the beginning, and we reformulate other hypotheses, and we experiment again for what? To reach the goal. So, here, everyone, when you memorize the experiment, what is it? Remember three things. What is it? Remember that the experiment will be recreated in the lab environment. This is one. And artificial conditions. And for what purpose? All of this is to verify the truth of the hypotheses. All of this is correct. So, this is the definition of what? The definition of the experiment. The second thing, can they give me instead of "measure"? After all, they gave me "measure." What can they give me instead of "measure"? A criterion, or a basis, or a principle, or a rule, or a basis, or a principle, or a rule. Do you understand what that means? Meaning that the measure, the measure, is not even a fixed term. Or they might change the term they mean. It might be the criterion, but there are things close to it, not exactly what is meant, but close. Everyone, the basis, or the principle, or are we in agreement? This, everyone, is a term like the term "measure." What will the student do? He will derive his two positions from the question, normally. What do you have? Two positions. The first position: the experiment is the unique measure. And people don't know how to derive positions. I will remind you how to derive them. Look how you do it. You have, everyone, I have. "Is the experiment the primary measure of science?" Remove "Is." Take this whole thing and put it here. "The experiment is a unique measure of science." And then what do you do? You reverse it. What does it become? "The experiment is not the unique measure of science." I have maintained the same terms with the vowel markings so that it becomes clear to you how to derive the position and how to derive the position. Then, if you want to change the terms, change the terms. This is for the first position and the second position. Then, you will build an introduction. Who reminds me of the introduction, everyone? And what are the three steps in the dialectical methodology? Go ahead. Good. [Music] Direct posing of the problem, formulation of samples, posing of the problem, the beginning of the step, defining the subject. What is it? We define the experiment. Highlighting the philosophical contradiction and posing the question. The question is the definition of the subject. Plus the definition. Right. When it says "introduction plus definition," the introduction, as I told you before, everyone, that problem can be used as an introduction here. And when you reach "Among these sciences," you write "Experimental Sciences," and then there is the definition. The definition is "a collection of sciences that study natural phenomena." And then what do you do? Its most prominent steps are the experiment. And you define what? And you define the experiment. The same definition you have on the paper. Here it is. Do we understand? Right. Now, we have, we will build the introduction. We have done the general introduction plus the definition of the experiment. What will we do? We will highlight the philosophical contradiction. We have done the general introduction plus the definition of the experiment. We have done the philosophical contradiction. People who don't know how to do a philosophical contradiction, we have a fixed formulation. We take the beginning and say, "The dialectic between a group of philosophers and thinkers." And what is it, everyone? About what? You take the subject. What is the title? The value of the experiment. The value of the hypothesis. I have the value of the hypothesis. The value of the experiment. Normally. So, some consider it a primary condition for what? For scientific validity. Meaning, you cannot say that science is science if it does not involve experimentation. And some have gone to say that it is not the only condition for science. What does that mean? It means that the experiment is the only measure of science, and there are other sciences that do not involve experimentation. Give me an example. Give me the science of astronomy. The science of mathematics. Good. And here, everyone, this is the biggest evidence that there are sciences that rely on other methods, but they are also sciences. So, the second position will broaden the scope of scientific validity to other areas that do not involve experimentation. And the first position will restrict scientific validity only to subjects that can be experimented on. Do you understand? You go to the second position and say, "Or the elevation of the experiment." Okay, no scientist rejects the experiment. Or a scientist must experiment. He told him that experimentation alone is not the basis of science. We are doing sciences and there is no experimentation. And look at sciences. Mathematics, astronomy. We even have human sciences, like history, like psychology, like sociology. These are not material sciences, but they are sciences, and there is no experimentation. Right. We have done the two positions. It remains to pose, to pose the question. Does the experiment constitute the primary condition that makes science, science? What does that mean? Does experimentation make science, science? Or are there other methods that also make science? What do you think? Should we restrict science to experimentation, or should we keep the circle of science open to many other fields? Very good. The circle is open to other fields. Right. If there is no experimentation, is it still science? Yes. What else? Zakaria said, "The experiment is the unique measure." Zakaria, don't get angry. He told you that the experiment is the primary measure that reveals science. Yes. Add to that, the experiment is a primary measure. Yes. Who else can give us something else? What do you think, everyone? The experiment is a primary measure. People, everyone, said the experiment. Why should we broaden the scope of science? So, there are people who tell us that experimentation alone is enough. Give us an argument. Farshawi said that if we restrict science only to experimentation, science becomes limited only to the field of experimentation. And this, everyone, is a mistake. Yes. This is an idea. Go ahead. You. Rahman, the nature of the method. The nature of... You mean we can have new methods? We can have new methods that adapt to the nature of the subjects. For example, the psychoanalytic method with psychology. The statistical method with sociology. Good. There are rational sciences. Good. Did you hear? There are rational sciences that we cannot experiment on. Yes. Who else can participate? Wessal. Ah, Nour. Go ahead. Go ahead. You drank tea. Yes. Agreed. A little. Follow. So, this is regarding the introduction. And we will move on to the body of the introduction. Right. Is there a problem? Or is it difficult? Who didn't understand it? Let me repeat. So, everyone, remember three basic steps: defining the subject, which is the experiment. Highlighting the philosophical contradiction, showing the dispute about what? And showing the two positions. And you have your question. Change the wording, everyone. Just a word or two, and you have changed the phrasing. It's better. The general introduction. Right. The general introduction. You saw the general introduction. Memorize the philosophy of sciences. When you reach "Among these sciences," you write "Experimental Sciences." The definition is next to it. And then what do you do? And its most prominent steps are the experiment. And you define the experiment. The same phrasing. Correct. Highlighting the philosophical contradiction. You understood it, right? Look at me. The first position. Who represents this direction? It has someone named Claude Bernard. It has someone named Ernst Mach. And it has a direction called Logical Positivism. And it has someone named Samuel Tye. Who are these people who said the experiment is the science? It's not just experimentation. It's experimentation. They said that. Why did they say that? They said that experimentation is precise. And science is precise. And everyone agrees on the results. If you change experimentation and bring other methods, these methods will bring relative results. And if we get relative results, it will not be important. It will be philosophical. Probabilistic. Everyone can give their opinion. And we do not want science to reach the stage of relativity. According to this direction, if there is science, it is objective, stable, precise, only through experimentation. And staying away from what? From any method that might diminish the value of science or the precision of its results. Let's start. The first position. What did they say, everyone? Experimentation. Experimentation is the source of all knowledge. What does that mean? Experimentation is the source of all knowledge. Meaning, whatever knowledge we have in our lives, it originally comes from experimentation. You say, "Professor, anything." I tell you, anything in life must go through empirical experimentation. Go to the mind. The mind's stage is a later stage. Meaning, the mind comes to translate and interpret the existing empirical data. A small child, have you seen him? Anything, if he doesn't experiment and learn it, and this is the biggest evidence that what? Experimentation. When we talk about human examples in general, if we go into the details of sciences, everyone, all sciences are divided. What is the reason for the explanatory method? The experimental method. The experimental method is waiting here. If the experimental method did not come, we would still be in philosophy today. Philosophy is still attached. If it were not for this, everyone, look at the position. It says: the circle of knowledge. The circle of knowledge includes physics, chemistry, geology, biology, literature, ethics, politics, logic, economics. Everything belongs to what? Belongs to philosophy. These branches separated and became independent sciences. If we were able to experiment. If we were able to experiment in this field. We took the example. They went to the field of inanimate matter and started experimenting. What separated? Physics, chemistry, geology. Inanimate matter. Right? They said, "Let's expand the scope of the experimental method to living matter." What separated? Biology. Biology, the science of life. Right? Let's expand further. They went and expanded to the field of human phenomena, such as psychology, history, and sociology. When they experimented on them, did they separate? Psychology separated. Sociology separated. History separated. Here, everything that is experimented on becomes a science and becomes completely independent of philosophy. What did they say here, everyone? They said that experimentation is the source of all these things that will emerge from us as a postulate or as an argument or a general idea. The second point: Experimentation is the decisive criterion. Why did we consider it a decisive criterion? Because, everyone, I will go and proceed together. As if I am an experimenter, I will experiment. The first thing I do is observe the phenomenon. Right. I observed. I entered the field. I observed. I observed. Second, I put a hypothesis. It could be this or that. And then the experimental method begins. It is called what? The decisive criterion. And therefore, it is a decisive criterion because it is what will decide for me the truth of the hypothesis. It directly leads to the law. Either it will go with the hypothesis you put, or it can correct it, or correct the hypothesis, or assume another one and repeat the experiment. So, here, everyone, remember this. And then underline this. It also appears on the paper in the plan. The decisive criterion. This is one point. Another point: The scientific law is the result of numerous experiments. Example: boiling water. Look, what did I say, everyone? The scientific law is the result of numerous experiments. I did not experiment. I will not reach the law. So, the law is the outcome. You will never reach a law if you have not experimented. Do you understand? So, here, the law, look what we said about it. We said it is the result of numerous experiments. And these numerous experiments. If we take the example of Thomas Edison, he conducted 1004 experiments. 1004. He succeeded in 1004. And he said, "I have not conducted failed experiments, but rather experiments that did not succeed." So, numerous experiments. You think the scientist just experiments? Impossible. Rather, everyone, they are normal experiments. Not one experiment, and he sits and thinks. In different ways, with possibly different data, to reach the law. And we gave the example of boiling water because it is the simplest example. And regarding boiling water specifically, I put water at how much? I put it that when it reaches, say, 80 degrees, it boils. It did not reach. So, I did another experiment. We let it reach what? Instead of 90, it did not boil. Then we did it again. It reached 100 degrees. It boiled. When it reached 100 degrees, it boiled. We derived the law that the boiling point is 100 degrees. Did we reach it directly? No. Through numerous experiments. This is one point. Another point: The experiment gives us confidence in the results. When someone comes to you with a theory in daily life and has no scientific evidence for it, do you believe it? You believe it. But when a scientist tells you, "So-and-so said it, and he reached the law, and there are contemporary experiments, and so on," we immediately... What is the thing that gives us confidence? It is the experiment. If you do not do the experiment, you will not reach it. And we also know that the scientist is skeptical. This skepticism is that everything he reaches, he seeks to reach something better. So, the scientist, will he just work on it intellectually without going to verify it empirically? Impossible. So, the doubt about the results, what does it do? Experimentation. Experimentation is what confirms the reality of the phenomenon and its causes. So, what did we say? The experiment gives us confidence. Look at the term "confidence." Even in daily life. Look, we have a proverb. It is said outside, "Do not ask the person, ask the one who experienced it." Or "Do not ask the doctor, ask the experimenter." Because here, everyone, these people said it. I will quote them. Because the experimenter, what is he? Right. He went through that thing empirically and experimented. The doctor, he studied, or whatever else. He studied for seven years, and then specialized, and so on. But he might have a theoretical operation, but he does not put it exactly in what? In the situation the experimenter is in. Exactly. He is the one who... And this is evidence of what? Evidence that experimentation is more important than theorizing. Theoretical theorizing is a lot, but not in what happens in the event. Experimentation. Experimentation. So, another point, everyone: Scientific research loses its value in the absence of experimentation. What does that mean? Something that does not have experimentation is questionable. It does not have 100% certainty. And another thing is that science becomes worthless. It becomes like philosophy, just theorizing. That everyone puts forward a theory and that's it. But is there experimentation? No. Science, everyone, its language is experimentation. It cannot confirm anything for you unless there is an experiment for it. And this is also an important point. Let's talk a little about the scientists who spoke about what? About this point. First, Francis Bacon. Who, everyone, can introduce him to us? The founder of the experimental method in the 17th century. Meaning, we established something called the experimental method. Right. What did he say? The development and progress of sciences are thanks to experimentation. What does that mean? If experimentation did not come, science would not develop, and we would remain in philosophy and remain as before. That all sciences are attached to philosophy. Meaning, this point, the founder of experimentation, and you know, Bacon, he was the greatest one who tried to preserve the experimental method without hypotheses, which are intellectual contemplations, without expanding this field to other areas like biology, he was against it. Like human sciences, he was against it. He wanted to restrict experimentation only to inanimate matter to preserve the precision of results. Because he knew that the more this method expands, the more the results will become relative. Samuel Tye. What did he say? Experimentation is the primary source of scientific theories. Experimentation, everyone, is the primary source of scientific theories. Example: theories of physics and chemistry. Here, everyone, you ask yourself, what does it mean that experimentation is the primary source of scientific theories? Meaning, if we remove experimentation, there will be no scientific theories. Because scientific theories and scientific laws, how were they established? Through experimenters, right? He did not experiment. He has no right to establish a law if he has not confirmed it through experimentation. And also, it does not acquire objectivity. If you give him, for example, a phenomenon that happens at a certain temperature, and he presents a theory, what will you do? You will go and experiment. When you go and experiment, you might find it correct, or you might find it incorrect. And therefore, there is probability. So, what did he say? He said that if we want to establish a precise theory, there must be empirical experimentation. This is Samuel Tye. Let's take another point. The success of experimentation in the field of living matter, which is the field of biology. And I gave you an experiment before, it was called the experiment of the rabbit's urine. What is the experiment of the rabbit's urine? And there is another experiment in biology called the experiment of fermentation by Louis Pasteur. These experiments, what is the evidence for them? Experiments in biology. Evidence that the experimental method succeeded. It succeeded in inanimate matter, and then it was expanded to living matter, and it succeeded. You say, "Professor, give me the evidence." You say, "It was able to establish a fixed legal program that all herbivores feed on their internal reserves if they do not find food." Is this a law with certainty? With experimentation? With empirical objectivity? All the conditions. If I had not experimented, would this be just theories? But when he experimented, he confirmed it. Meaning, the rabbits, and he did two samples. One sample, he kept it fasting, did not feed it. And another sample, he fed it. And he started comparing what? Comparing their feces. He found that the fasting one, its urine, or rather, its feces, were normal. And the one that was eating, its feces were normal. So, he concluded a result. By what? By supporting the student. Everyone. This position must use a set of quotes. I have four quotes. And try, every time you write a quote, try to explain it and elaborate on it and make the examiner understand it. And try to make him understand it. Claude Bernard said, "Experimentation is the only means of discovering the truth of external phenomena." And he did not say, everyone, "Experimentation is one of the means." He said "the only means." This is important. Not meaning only it and no other means. And Claude Bernard, he observed, he did not just observe. Or Claude Bernard, he did it in science, and he did it in hypothesis, and he did it in biology, and he did it in medicine. He established it. Or he established it. Meaning, that in the absence of experimentation, there is no science. He said, "It is impossible to establish a theory in the natural sciences without empirical foundations." He said it is impossible to describe yourself as having established a scientific law or a correct theory if you have not experimented. This is Samuel Tye. He has another quote: "Physics, in particular, arises from experimental work." What does he mean by "physics, in particular"? Meaning, because, everyone, the first science to gain independence from philosophy was physics, of course, with chemistry and what else? The first independence. Right. "Arises from experimental work." Who reminds me of the word "physics"? I told you before, what does "physics" mean? Physics. When I explained physics to you, what is physics? Physics is the nature of physical phenomena. And when we say "metaphysics," it means beyond. So, that science that you study, physics, Newton's laws, and so on, that is the field. Is it possible to experiment on nature? Is it possible to study nature without experimentation? Impossible. Nature is understood only through experimentation. So, physics, in particular, is the study of nature. Let's go to another person, Charles Sanders Peirce. "Science is knowledge derived from empirical facts." What does "derived from empirical facts" mean? Correct. Meaning, science is derived from empirical facts. If you remove the empirical facts, there will be nothing. Because without experimentation, there is nothing. Right. So, this is the first direction, which supports what? The first position. It's a little easy, right? Yes. We will try to criticize the first position. The positive aspect is correct. The doctrine of the proponents of the direction in clarifying what? In clarifying the importance of experimentation to reach scientific laws or for the independence of science. However, this direction did not escape what? From objectivity and from what? From two criticisms. They ask me, "Professor, give me criticisms." You give me at least two. You give me two. First, the analysis. The second is that when you try to use the dialectic, you need to criticize the opponents. And the criticism of the opponents must be specific. You bring your arguments. You need to have some additional criticisms. Right. The first negative point is that considering experimentation as the only basis for science is an unjustified restriction and narrowing of the scope of science. What does that mean? Meaning, the people who said experimentation alone is enough, what did they do? They restricted it only to subjects that can be experimented on. Everyone, we have other subjects besides experimental, material subjects. We have other subjects, such as spiritual and moral subjects. Man, everyone, has two parts: material and spiritual. The people who said experimentation alone, meaning, you only looked at the material aspect and neglected the spiritual, moral, historical, political, economic, and cultural aspects. How do we study them? Do we exclude them from the sciences? It will not be correct, right? So, here is the second point. What did we say? It is possible to have other sciences, but what? They are not accepted. But they are sciences and independent of philosophy. So, this is the first point. The second point is that this direction neglected multiple methods of reaching scientific knowledge. It focused only on the method of experimentation and neglected the development that humans can achieve through other methods. Because you told me that only experimentation is valid, you have limited human intellect, everyone. You have set limits for him. You told him, "You cannot bring anything else. Only experimentation is valid." While humans can bring multiple other methods, and it is possible, everyone, that we will see in the second position that it has other methods that lead to positive results, and that we will not rely on experimentation in the traditional sense that the proponents of the first position relied on. And another point: This direction has been surpassed by contemporary scientific developments by adapting new methods. And this is what we are talking about in the second position. Listen to me. What does it mean to adapt new methods? First, I have this thing, everyone. It's a tangible thing. It can be experimented on. Right. So, laws were derived. For example, this plastic burns or expands or something. So, I derived the law. For example, your colleague brought another topic. She said, "Professor, happiness. How can I be happy?" This is a great philosophical topic, right? And we have asked about happiness a lot, everyone. She said, "Happiness." Let's talk about happiness. How can I be happy? Let's take happiness to the lab and bring a chemical solution and put it on it. It's impossible to derive laws. What do we start doing? We start by looking at how happiness can be studied scientifically, but not through experimentation. Can we experiment? We can experiment, but not directly. Right? Someone brings me another phenomenon. Like, femininity. Like, femininity. Femininity is a social phenomenon. It is not tangible. How can it be studied experimentally? It cannot be. What can we do? We can study it through statistics. We can find a solution to this phenomenon. Right? Or someone comes to me and says, "Professor, study the Cold War for us." How do we study the Cold War? Is it an empirical experiment? We go back to the Cold War in 1945 and start studying it empirically? It's impossible because it's a past event. And the place. The solution is what? We go and look for a method that takes into account the nature of this event. So, we adapt. We adapt the method. Or methods. New methods. With the nature of the subjects. I have a psychological event. I adapt a method that works with the psychological event. I have a historical event. I look for a method that works with the nature of the psychological event. We have a historical event. I bring a method that matches the nature of the historical event. So, here, the condition of old scientific validity, that experimentation is necessary, will go. The new condition. We will see it in the second position. The new condition is that the method is adapted to the nature of the subject. So, psychology becomes scientific. And we can study history scientifically. And we can study sociology scientifically. And we can study mathematics scientifically. And logic scientifically. Politics scientifically. And economics scientifically. But not through experimentation. What do we do? We adapt new methods. And these methods must bring us precise results. When they bring us precise, objective results, what do we do? This is considered science. It separates and becomes independent of what? Of philosophy. And this is what we will see, everyone, in the second part. The second position says that experimentation is not the primary measure of science. Rather, there can be other independent and objective sciences, but they did not rely on it. Is it a little easy or difficult? Did you have questions about the first position? It remains the best, right? Because you considered that the condition of science is necessary. There is no science without it. Mathematics is not science. If it requires the condition of experimentation, there is no science. Mathematics is not science. Do you understand? If you followed the criticism, you understood. The second direction will look at it differently. So, no, professor. What are the other bases that we take besides experimentation? We have something called the axiomatic method. We will see it in the second position, which is the hypothetical-deductive method. We saw it in contemporary mathematics. We have a method called the statistical method in sociology. We have the historical method in history. We have the psychoanalytic method of Sigmund Freud in psychology. We have the behaviorist method. These are all methods that we will see later in the second position. Other methods. Look at the second position. Everyone, you have a question. It's a little easy, everyone. With the criticism, record this work. And let's go to the second direction.