In the last article dated January 25,
2017, I’ve shown that any scientific knowledge is falsifiable. For
some, this is a disheartening fact. For decades, science is
considered infallible in its claim of knowledge. It cannot be
mistaken in finding knowledge since it is founded on experience.
Experiential knowledge is verifiable. With right discipline and
attitude, a scientist can process the whole field of experience and extract
knowledge from it. Thus, real knowledge can only be gained through experience,
not through rational demonstration. This belief has been defended by
a number of scientists and philosophers, like empiricists, positivists,
Kantians, among others.
Research, as understood today, claims
to be scientific. Researchers have high level of confidence similar
to that of scientists’. Research-based knowledge is better than any
other forms of knowledge, especially one gained through pure reason. Reliance
on research-based knowledge is now “the rule of thumb” in Higher Education
Institutions (HEIs) wishing to utilize research-based instructions. Research
is considered one of the pillars of HEIs, besides instruction and community
extension. In some practices, HEI faculty are snubbed or not
promoted if they are not able to publish research studies. If a
faculty has not published or able to produce research studies, he/she has to
swift to other profession.
It's undeniably true that research has
played a big role in successes in industries, in science, and even in
interplanetary missions. Missions in Mars and in other planets have been
successful because of constant tests and experiments of unmanned rovers in
varying circumstances expected to be encountered in the missions. Research has made advances in technology,
advances in psychology, in politics, in economics, and in other fields of human
interest. The research discipline itself has advanced to its heights with
the utilization of statistics. Researchers themselves have made advances
too in their discipline and attitude in conducting research. Researchers
are now becoming too objective, too specialized, and too productive.
Yet, the challenge is still there. Research-based knowledge can
still be falsifiable. Even if this knowledge is made justified by hard evidence, gathered by well-known experts, and gathered by best-possible methodology, yet we have to accept the fact that it is still under the principle of falsifiability. It can still be contested. Counter evidence may falsify it. There is only one implication of this fact: no one has the monopoly of knowledge.
