| Status of Topics Touching the Message of Salvation | | Scientific (Retroductive) Method and Human Reason | | Scientific Method and the Interpretation of Language | | Theological Method | | Theology and Hermeneutics | | Theological Method and False Doctrine | | Hierarchy of Bible Doctrines | | The Top of the Pyramid | | The Second Tier | | Ecumenism and Tribalism |
|
Theology and Doctrine
by
Ronald R. Shea, Th.M., J.D.
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND
THE INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE
|
Scientific and legal methodology are virtually identical. However, this methodology is not unique to these fields. In fact, this methodology is used in virtually every area of life, whether consciously or unconsciously. Those areas include the interpretation of literature, and even every day conversation. Consider the following example:
You are listening to someone describe his experience while living in another city. He begins:
"Perhaps the best part of the city however was the Piccadilly."
You have never heard of "the Piccadilly," and you have no idea what he's talking about. In conversation, "data" from which we interpret something usually consists of additional words forming the context of the statement, as well as the historical, cultural, and linguistic background of the speaker.
But as with science and law, to move forward and test the merit of a hypothesis, you must first posited at least one a hypothesis. And to move forward in a conversation, you must do the same. However, if you posit multiple hypotheses, you have the advantage of weighing one against the other and selecting the most likely one.
From his initial sentence, your "gut" feeling is that "the Piccadilly" is either a cinematic theater or a cafeteria. The manner in which you generate this hypothesis is so complex that it probably cannot even be described. It draws upon all the experience that you have ever had in your language and culture.
He contnues: "My wife and I used to go there every Friday night."
You weigh this new piece of data against the competing theories. A couple could very reasonably go to the movies every Friday night, and they could eat at a local cafeteria every Friday night. In this case, the evidence fits both theories equally well.
He continues: "It was only a mile and a half from our house, so we could get there in a few minutes."
This statement could refer to the ease and pleasure of driving the movies every Friday night, or, it could refer to the ease and pleasure of driving to the cafeteria every Friday night. Both hypotheses still appear to fit well with the data. You ask yourself what relevance this has against the rest of his story. Movies are scheduled to start at a fixed time, and arriving before the movie begins is therefore a time critical process. |
However, it is commonly known that, at certain times in the evenings, the waiting lines at a cafeteria begin to grow. His last statement, therefore, slightly favors the cinema theory, but not by much. There is really not much separating the two theories at this point.
In his fourth and fifth statements, he relates: "the lines usually move pretty quickly, and the selections were terrific." Once again, this statement fits both theories extremely well. Cafeterias have waiting lines, and the movies have waiting lines. Cafeterias have a selection of food, and multiplex cinemas had a selection of movies. However, you note that the order of these two statements fit better with the cafeteria hypothesis than with the cinema hypothesis. At a cafeteria, one normally waits in line first, and chooses from a selection afterwards. When attending the movies, one normally selects a movie to watch before waiting in line. Nevertheless, at this point, both theories remain almost equal in likelihood.
His six statement finally favors one theory over another. "The best part, however, was the desserts. I think they were better than many four-star restaurants at which I've eaten." Of course, if someone is already emotionally wedded to the "cinema theory," they can continue to defend their theory. "Well, cinemas have always had a snack counter with candy and popcorn. Some cinemas even offer gourmet coffee now, and have a dining area." The defense is certainly plausible, but to most, not persuasive. Unless another piece of evidence comes forward which strongly favors the cinema theory, your mind will begin interpreting his entire story in terms of a cafeteria.
The above reasoning process may seem rather elaborate. But this is only because we do this unconsciously. Every sentence you have ever heard has meaning, and it is very rare that such meaning reveals itself in the first word. It is the scientific method that discloses the meaning of a statement.
Summary of Literary and conversational reasoning:
-
One or more hypotheses are advanced to explain the data (a sentence, statement or paragraph).
-
New data is received (the second sentence).
-
The new data is tested against the initial hypotheses, and conclusions are drawn as to how heavily this data favors one hypothesis over the other. Which theory best explains the data? These tests typically comprise the same components as the scientific method:
-
Which theory fits most of the data? And
-
Does the theory fit the data smoothly, elegantly and rationally, or is it made to fit by a convoluted reasoning process?
|
|
Scientific Method and the Interpretation of Language |
|
|
