Methods of Philosophy

There are many who have pondered the questions of "How," and "Why," about many topics.  Many seek to prove a particular belief, perhaps a simple idea, or a more complex thought or series of ideas that come together.  Philosophy seeks to find answers, a popular tool is investigation, which leads to building an argument to prove or disprove an idea, thought or whatever it might be called.
     Socrates is given credit for the earliest recorded method called Interrogation. By employing question and answers his goal was to find truth, or at the very least reduce error.  He started with the presupposition that truth was inborn or native to the human mind.  Based on Plato's teachings, man had a wealth of information within because of previous life experiences (reincarnation my not be far eastern alone) .  Thus, when the proper questions are asked, the memory can be "jogged" to retrieve these pieces of information (truth?).
     The presupposition is obviously flawed due to the prior life part, but we can gain something from the application of the question and answer.  Clear questions are very beneficial, and do aid not only retrieveing information, but also as a valuable learning tool.
     A very negative point to this is that the questioner could load the question (which does happen today) to elicit the desired response.  Many more are inclined to follow Locke's theory of "Tabula Rosa" or the blank slate.
     Nonetheless, all would agree on the value of good questions not only here in, but in all aspects of life.
     Zeno, a contemporary of Socrates had a different method of investigating and discerning truth, he would reduce alternative positions to the absurd. "Reductio ad Absurdium" guided many to a simple conclusion, no position that generates contradictions can be considered true.  This helps in applying the law of Non-Contradiction.  The premise of the opponent can be proven flase by reducing it to a contradiction.
     Aristotle , who lived after Socrates and Zeno, brought us the deductive method, or Deductive Reasoning.  This method moves from the general to the specific.  An example follows:

All Dogs are four-footed animals  (premise)
Fido is a dog                                  (premise)
Fido is a four-footed animal           (conclusion)

     The syllogism, seen above is the standard form of deductive reasoning.  Syllogisms will be explored in depth later.
     The biggest weakness with this form of reasoning  is alack of universal premises.  many of these may seem like universally accepted, but in reality they will fail the strict tests.  The bigest one is that the premise must be verifiable 100% of the time.
     For example, the issue of mortality, but if a person is unobserved, do we really know they die?  Validity or soundness is different from truth, validity helps to arrive at truth, but not always the other way.
     Moving to the 1500's we see a "newer" method, advanced by Francis bacon, called the Inductive Method.  Later this was formalized by John Stuart Mill, in The Cannons of Inductive Logic.   These four rules are a good summary.

1) The Method of Agreement:  The one factor common to all antecedent situations where an effect occurs is probably the cause of the effect. 
2) The method of Difference:  Whenever an effect occurs when A is present but not when it is absent, then A is probably the cause of the effect.
3)  Combine the first two methods when one method alone does not yield a definite result.
4)  The method of Concomitant Variations:  When an antecedent factor varies concomitantly  with a consequent factor, then the former is probably the cause of the latter.

This led to the Scientific Method, which is not scientific, needs to be replicated, and adds three methods of reasoning, deductive, inductive and adductive.
Simple steps are here;
1)  Situation generates a problem
2) Formulation of the problem (what is it?)
3) Observation of relevant facts
4) Use of previous knowledge
5) Formulation of a hypothesis
6) Deduction from the hypothesis
7) Testing the hypothesis
8) Conclusion

     More recently, newer methods have been developed.  The first of these is existentialism. Existentialism has had many work on its development, but the one who did the most is Sören Kierkegaard.  The existentialists were reacting to the scientific methodologies, which were considered to be incomplete.  Simply put, objective truth exists, but this is not as as important as subjective truth.  While saying "truth is subjective," he would also state that unless one believes something passionately and subjectively, one does not possess the truth.  He went further to state that truth is not just subjective, but in the supra-national, paradoxical realm of belief, where rationalism is set aside for the revealed truth of experiences.  He used the story of Abraham and Isaac to show how Abraham took a "leap of faith" in obeying God.
     Jean-Paul Sartre took issue with this by stating that "man is condemned to freedom" with no values to be discovered within any factual or objective realm. Sartre went so far as to describe how values are not discovered, but created by man's free choice.  Perhaps the best example to contrast with the scientific method is not the test tube, but the one holding the test tube.
     To be fair, there is value with existentialism, for scientific fact alone does not explain everything, for there is much in life that is indeed existential, especially one's religious beliefs.  For there is more to life than objects, there are subjects or persons.  But lean too far in this direction is unwise, and perhaps dangerous. Fortunately, the Abraham and Isaac story turned out for the good. One could respond to this story being used here with the question, how does one really know if its God or Satan telling Abraham what to do?
     The Phenomenological Method is an attempt to return to per-theoretical approaches to one's primary awareness. (Take a minute and work the words through slowly).  The goal is a neutral approach to examining and resolving issues.  The claim is this is a pre-suppositionless method, letting bare facts speak for themselves.  Presuppositions are avoided by drawing on one's experiences.  The development of this method resulted in many variations, including directly analyzing the "I" results in "me" being analyzed by "I" who is outside looking in and analyzing. Consciousness is always conscious of something, including itself, so there is no way to ascertain or get to the pure consciousness of anyone, or any thought.
     The difficulty of  presuppositions being removed by experience alone is problematic, for one can never really set aside these base thoughts and principles.  The radical separation of subject and object is difficult to work with, let alone feasible. To insist on no pre-suppositions is itself a pre-supposition, so the method is difficult to work through to a logical conclusion.
     The Analytic Method has two approaches, Verification and Clarification.  In Verification, to be truly meaningful, it must be purely definitional or analytic; or in order to be meaningful it must be verifiable by one or more of the five senses.  All other statements, such as theoretical, theological, ethical) are meaningless -- non-sense.  Another view of this is that a statement is meaningless unless it is subject to falsification, such that if any part of the statement cannot be used against it, it is not have meaning, or even be true.
     However, in Clarification the analysis of language is used to understand the puzzles that are faced.  By working through the rules and understandings of language one can grasp the solution, and the truth of an issue.  While one of the verification scholars would legislate the use of language, the clarification proponent would have the role be to listen to the use of language.
     The value of the Analytic Method is this, we need clarification to understand the issue, but the focus on experience leaves it falling short in areas that are important to many.  Faith, etics, personal values could fail many of these criteria.
     The approaches discussed above show us that philosophy has many faces, and all have value.  The callenge will always be in understanding fully what is before us, what to do with it, and what to do in the future.  Philosophy works to help all have a better understanding of many aspects of life, and for some, integrating differing value systems into a workable life view.  the biggest question faced by many who read this is basing these values on the teaching, principles, values, and ideals of Jesus Christ.