| Literal Comprehension
“We Are All Scientists” is an essay by T. H. Huxley. Scientists and ordinary men use the same method to find out the thing. Ordinary people are afraid of scientific terms such as induction, natural laws, theories, and hypothesis, but they follow the same process as scientist follows.
By testing two green and hard apples which are sour, they make a general law that all green and hard apples are sour. They have used the inductive method.
When the third apple is given they refuse and say that all green and hard apples are sour, that this apple is green and hard, and therefore this is sour. In this case, they have used the deductive method. The more the general law is verified, the more convincing and universal it will be.
Seeing the missing teapot and spoon in our parlor, the open window, and the marks on the window, we make a hypothesis that a thief has taken them away. To draw this conclusion we have unknowingly followed a series of reasoning. Windows don’t open themselves, somebody opened them. The marks can be made by some living beings and they probably maybe thieves.
The series makes us conclude that a thief who made the marks came in and stole the teapot and the spoon. This hypothesis will be verified by the police and the jury and the thief will be punished. Scientists also use the same reasoning process.
Theirs are based on strong scientific knowledge and verified carefully, faithfully, and variously. So there is less chance of finding a criticism in their hypothesis. But in most cases, an ordinary man’s hypothesis is based on an unreasonable thing.
The author is trying to say that we must be familiar with scientific terms and the process of the experiment. We must use these terms to be the same as scientists. And we should verify general law as well as a hypothesis as much as possible under various circumstances.
| Critical Thinking
This pleasing essay was written a long time ago, yet it still holds the beauty of the nature of science and its similarities with general experiences.
But I have some issues with this essay where I do not completely believe the writer. They are:
- Does always our hypothesis will be correct with the final result?
- How can any general people think like genius scientists?
- Does it always use only logic to give a new invention? Is there not any coincidence?
By reading this essay I clearly understood scientific terms like induction, deduction, syllogism, and hypothesis. I knew that scientists are normal human beings who work similarly we do.
But there is one main difference between them and us. We conclude rapidly but they conclude after experimenting with the condition in a vast wide area. This essay inspired me to be more reliable by reasoning like scientists.