20151209 - The Phenomenal Creation of Knowledge

Running head: THE PHENOMENAL CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE 1

The Phenomenal Creation of Knowledge

William C. B. Harding

Grand Canyon University

December 9, 2015

THE PHENOMENAL CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE 2

The Phenomenal Creation of Knowledge

Instincts and intuition are personal tools for examining and explaining our understanding

of the phenomena associated with human experience such that a refined hypothesis or idea can

be formed that leads to the creation of knowledge through scientific reasoning. Moreover, and

according to Dewey (1948), the exploration of the mind-body relationship with respect to human

experience and prior knowledge is more than a study of observable stimuli and response such

that experience is “. . . a patchwork of disjoined parts, a mechanical conjunction, or unallied

processes.” (p. 356) Specifically, mind and body are connected through a seemly disparate

relationship between an individual’s sensing and response, where the context of an experience

influences its interpretation. With that in mind, this paper explores the proposal that the

knowledge of human experiences and phenomenon cannot align singularly within the constraints

of natural science and that the seed of knowledge is a system of orderly thoughts built off

rational truth, which form the foundation for the discovery of further truths (Stumpf & Fieser,

2015).

Relating the influence that context has on the mind-body relationship in understanding

experience and acquired knowledge, the views of innate knowledge as presented by René

Descartes and John Locke help to form a foundation for discussing the objective and subjective

examination of human experiences. Furthermore, Descartes and Locke’s contrasting

perspectives, viewed through the lens of ontology and epistemology, assists in understanding the

various themes that are presented in this paper. Whereas, Descartes infers that knowledge is

resultant from the combination of prior knowledge and real experiences, such that even the

simple elements that compose unreal concepts/objects are in fact real (i.e., size, time, shape)

(Descartes & Cottingham, 2013). Conversely, Locke dismisses the theory of innate ideas, where


individuals begin their existence void of knowledge to the extent that it is acquired only through

experiences and self-reflection (Stumpf & Fieser, 2015).

With that in mind, this paper synthesizes many relevant articles and examines various

epistemological theories for evaluating the phenomena of human experience. From the

examination of those theories, through the lens of rationalism and empiricism, a hypothesis is

offered proposing the validity of objective and subjective analysis working in concert to form the

foundation of instinctive/intuitive ideation that leads to the discovery of knowledge through

scientific reasoning. Notwithstanding, though this paper also proposes a harmonious alignment

of objectivism and subjectivism, where the extraction of either “. . . causes a disintegration of the

process . . .” (Gibbs, 1979, p. 129), an examination of the individual themes discovered within

each of the evaluated articles will be discussed.

Knowledge Gleaned from Rationalism and Empiricism Views

The epistemological view of human experience and associated phenomena has vacillated

in its interpretation as well as divided the field of psychology as that view relates to objective

and subjective perspectives. Whereas, it is posited that early theorist focused more energy on

refuting other theories and making a name in the field of psychology, than attempting to create a

harmonious unified theory where objective and subjective/interpretive methods of analysis could

coexist. Such is the case as discovered within the articles that were examine for this paper,

where modern theorist suggest that the division within psychological schools of thought exists

and that for psychology to be recognized as a specialized science, unification regarding the

methods and analysis must be achieved (Charles, 2013). Moreover, theorist such as Clegg

(2013) appeared metaphorically ready to throw in the towel through his inference that the

fragmentation between the various schools of psychological will result in the dismantling of the


field of study, unless unification at all levels (i.e., methods, analysis, subjects) can be realized.

Similarly, though the intent of other theorist was to discuss concepts such as humanistic and

positive psychology or hypnosis, the message that was gleaned from their discussions was that

alignment of rationalist and empiricist views would never be achieved (Vandenberg, 2010;

Waterman, 2013).

Gray Lines Divide Subjective and Objective Analysis

Distinct as the division between subject and objective methods of analysis may appear

there are emerging proposals that support unification of the methods, where educators are being

encourage to teach students to embrace both science and idealization concepts when examining

the phenomena of human experience. According to Dahlin (2003), by not teaching both the

scientific and philosophical perspective on phenomenon, students are not being given a frame of

reference for understanding human experience from an ontological phenomenon point of view.

Furthermore, as emerging theorist start to examine the phenomena of human experience and as

science conceptualizes the mind-body relationship, the divisions between subjective and

objective analysis becomes blurred. That point is further emphasized in McConnell-Henry,

Chapman, and Francis’ (2009) examination of Martin Heidegger's subjective/interpretive

methods and Edmund Husserl's objective methods of understanding as it relates to the role that

context plays in analyzing phenomenon associated with human experience.

The question of whether subjective methods or objective methods of analysis are better

appears to be a common theme within many articles that discuss psychology’s realignment with

natural sciences or its emergence as a distinct science. That question has weaved its way into

virtually every psychological discussion, which is exemplified in Gibbs’ (1979) theory of

ecologically oriented inquiry, where it is suggested that both inductive and deductive reasoning


is valid in that their unification “. . . corresponds to a transcending of objectivist and subjectivist

fallacies in epistemological theory.” (p. 137) That being considered, can objective and

subjective analysis of human experience coexist or will the division between the two methods

lead to the psychology being fractured and absorbed by other sciences such as physics,

chemistry, and neurology.

Subjective Analysis of Human Experience

Examining subjective analysis of the phenomena associated with human experience, from

the perspective of empiricism, helps to determine its function, through isolation from objective

analysis. That view of subject or interpreted assessment can yield fruitful data, but that data does

not enable the individual to achieve results that can be considered as derived through scientific

reasoning. With that in mind, insight gleaned from a few theorists may help to shed light on the

concept of subjective analysis and enable an individual to reflect on its purpose.

Murphy, Alexander, and Muis’ (2012) epistemological view of knowledge is best

described in their statement that regardless of the theories of where knowledge comes from or

where it resides, it cannot exist as unexamined beliefs. That single statement and its inference to

the subjective assessment of phenomena, further supports the theory that knowledge is a

cognitive construct (i.e., inside the mind) as well as a social construct (i.e., outside the body)

(Murphy, Alexander, & Muis (2012).

Correspondingly, Dewey’s (1948) explanation of subjective interpretation of human

experience is defined as phenomena outside of the observable sensation and movement, such that

the inclusion of “. . . an anticipatory sensation . . .” (p. 363) is introduced as part of the

aggregation of parts that express the entire human experience. That said, human experience is


the subjective study of phenomenon that are more than just the observable parts associated with

stimuli and response (Dewey, 1948).

Accordingly, and relating subjective interpretation to the method of inductive reasoning,

it is posited that attempting to prove a hypothesis through inductive reasoning is flawed in that

no matter how many theories or predictions can prove the correctness of a hypothesis

(Wilkinson, 2013). As is suggested by Hume (1963), nature does not conform to a set of

consistent rules, where theorizing truth without the consideration for the chaotic aspect of nature,

will result in disputable conclusions.

Objective Analysis of Human Experience

Following the examination of subjective analysis of the phenomena associated with

human experience from the perspective of empiricism, it is then necessary to examine objective

analysis from the perspective of rationalism. That examination will assist with the understanding

that though both subjective and objective analysis methods can yield interesting results, applying

the methods separately without the benefit of the other, will yield results that either lack

scientific methods or are too vague as to derive any conclusive results.

That said, the theorist Edmund Husserl offers an interesting perspective on objective

evidence where it is inferred that the observable connection between consciousness and an object

are declared as objective evidence of phenomenon (Vernon, 2005). Hussel’s view may not have

been the most popular at the time, but he built on solid system of beliefs in human consciousness

where he proposed that as “. . . an act of consciousness reaches its object, evidence will have

occurred, and we will thereby have the experience of certainty.” (Vernon, 2005, p. 290)

Husserl’s view, which casts doubt on subjective interpretation, is best examined within

his proposal that in transcendent consciousness there is a connection maintained with


consciousness, where our vision resides outside of consciousness (Vernon, 2005). Moreover, a

modification of Husserl’s transcendent consciousness theory might read as; a candle is lit and we

see the light, where in seeing the light we see ourselves seeing, but we miss that the candle was

lit, such that we could see.

Unification of Subjective and Objective Analysis

As we move through discussions of subjective and objective analysis, we see how those

methods align with the concepts of inductive and deductive reasoning, where the overall goal is

to discover irrefutable truth. That alignment between subjective analysis and induction as well

as the alignment between objective analysis and deduction forms a methodology, where there is

the establishment of a mutual dependency (i.e., unification) between the components. That

unified methodology is crucial to the successful building of a harmonious and foundational

relationship between the separatist psychology camps that stand behind the banners of either

subjective/interpretive or objective analysis of human experience.

Using the unified methodology concept and considering the writings of early theorists, it

is evident that awareness of the divisions existed and that attempts were being made to

reconstitute the field of psychology. Working within the theories associated with induction and

deduction, it is postulated that theorist such as Dewey (1910) were creating concepts that could

unify and support the entirety of psychology. Whereas, it was stated that if the application of

inductive reasoning is the formulation of a premise and the use of deductive reasoning is to result

in a clear conclusion, then the two methods work together such that empirical results cannot be

achieved by separating the methods and attempting to use them independent of each other

(Dewey, 1910). Similarly, the two methods of reasoning ". . . are bound tightly together."

(Dewey, 1910, p. 81), where the idea can partially be found within the conclusion and the


conclusion is partially within the idea. With those statements being considered, the posited idea

that psychology’s divergent views of subjective and objective analysis could be unified within

the boundaries of induction and deduction, which correspondently aligns within theory that from

simple elegance emerges truth.

Conclusion

As was discussed within this paper, there are valid arguments relating to the use of only

objective or subjective methods for analysis, but what was also shown is that those methods can

be used together to realize knowledge characterized as scientific reasoning. Moreover, the

discussions regarding the alignment of inductive, deductive, abductive, and even hypothetico-

deductive reasoning support the proposal that the unification of subjective and objective methods

of analysis may be possible. Key to that unification is the agreement by theorist that psychology

should continue to grow and that instead of trying to push a round peg into a square hole, such is

the case in aligning psychology within the spectrum of existing sciences, theorist should band

together to redefine that spectrum, where science should allow for the acquisition of data through

subjective interpretation. That spectrum redefinition effort or scientific transformation should

provide for the inclusion of human experiential components that are judged as known using

innate and/or prior knowledge.

That said, this paper successfully examined concepts and methods used to analyze

phenomena associated with human experience, where the hypothesis was supported in that

objective and subjective analysis can be used to form the foundation of instinctive/intuitive

ideation that leads to the discovery of knowledge. Thus, the ontological view of interpreting

phenomena and acquiring knowledge through inductive reasoning combined with intuition and

instinctual assessments, is supported through the proposed solution of scientific spectrum


redefinition and subjective/objective unification. That concept is further supported by Dewey’s

(1948), inference to the role that ontology plays through the interpretation of human experience

as well as Heidegger’s proposal that ontology is the truest method for assessing human

experiences such as pain, suffering, hunger, and procreation (Ciocan, 2008). Additionally, the

data that supports this paper’s hypothesis is able to cast light on to the epistemological question

of where knowledge comes from and where does it reside. Specifically, knowledge is acquired

through the formulation of a question and an idea, where it is composed of innate knowledge,

instinctive/intuitive examination of phenomena, and interpretation of those phenomena (i.e.,

through induction). As an individual then uses the ontological results to deduce the truth of the

results, knowledge will be exposed which will then be consumed, retained, and shared as it

becomes an integral part of by the mind and body experience.


References

Charles, E. P. (2013). Psychology: The empirical study of epistemology and phenomenology.

Review Of General Psychology, 17(2), 140-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032920

Ciocan, C. (2008). The question of the living body in Heidegger's analytic of Dasein. Research

In Phenomenology, 38(1), 72-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156916408X262811

Clegg, J. W. (2013). The fragmented object: Building disciplinary coherence through a

contextual unit of analysis. Review Of General Psychology, 17(2), 151-155.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032926

Dahlin, B. (2003). The ontological reversal: a figure of thought of importance for science

education. Scandinavian Journal Of Educational Research, 47(1), 77.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313830308606

Dewey, J. (1910). Systematic Inference: Induction and Deduction. In , How we think (pp. 79-

100). Lexington, MA, US: D C Heath. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10903-007

Dewey, J. (1948). The reflex arc concept in psychology, 1896. In W. Dennis, W. Dennis (Eds.) ,

Readings in the history of psychology (pp. 355-365). East Norwalk, CT, US: Appleton-

Century-Crofts. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11304-041

Descartes, R., & Cottingham, J. (2013). René Descartes: Meditations on First Philosophy: With

Selections from the Objections and Replies. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from

http://eddiejackson.net/web_documents/Spark%20Notes%20Meditations.pdf

Gibbs, J. C. (1979). The meaning of ecologically oriented inquiry in contemporary psychology.

American Psychologist, 34(2), 127-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.2.127

Hume, D. (1963). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.


McConnell-Henry, T., Chapman, Y., & Francis, K. (2009). Husserl and Heidegger: exploring the

disparity. International Journal Of Nursing Practice, 15(1), 7-15 9p.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-172X.2008.01724.x

Murphy, P. K., Alexander, P. A., & Muis, K. R. (2012). Knowledge and knowing: The journey

from philosophy and psychology to human learning. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T.

Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, J. Sweller, ... J. Sweller (Eds.) , APA

educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp.

189-226). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/13273-008

Stumpf, S. E., & Fieser, J. (2015). Rationalism on the continent. In Greenberger, S. (Ed.).

Theories of Inquiry. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Retrieved from

http://www.gcumedia.com/digital-resources/mcgraw-hill/2015/theories-of-inquiry-

bundle_ebook_1e.php

Vandenberg, B. R. (2010). Evidence, ontology, and psychological science: The lesson of

hypnosis. Journal Of Theoretical And Philosophical Psychology, 30(1), 51-65.

http://dx.doi.org/1010.1037/a0016665

Vernon, R. F. (2005). Peering into the foundations of inquiry: An ontology of conscious

experience along Husserlian lines. Journal Of Theoretical And Philosophical Psychology,

25(2), 280-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0091263

Waterman, A. S. (2013). The humanistic psychology–positive psychology divide: Contrasts in

philosophical foundations. American Psychologist, 68(3), 124-133.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032168


Wilkinson, M. (2013). Testing the null hypothesis: The forgotten legacy of Karl Popper?.

Journal Of Sports Sciences, 31(9), 919-920.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.753636

Documents

20151209 - The Phenomenal Creation of Knowledge