Methods of inquiry

In Anthony Thiselton's (The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description) discussion of Heidegger he has some comments to make about the relationship between Heidegger's thought and that of T.F. Torrance with respect to scientific method and the epistemological task. Thiselton writes:

"True 'objectivity,' if this is the right word at all, depends on the appropriateness of the method of inquiry to the obect of inquiry. We do not prescribe the same methods in advance of all inquiries, on the assumption that one particular model of the act of knowledge is the only 'objective' one." (P. 188)

If we attempt to universalize the scientific method as the only appropriate method of inquiry for all objects of inquiry then many possible worlds of knowledge are eliminated as legitimate objects by definition. If the scientific method is the only method of inquiry we have then we have put strict limits on what we can even raise questions about. This is the "if my only tool is a hammer, then every problem is a nail" approach to simplifying the epistemological task.

Andrew Rowell, in his blog, ID in the United Kingdom, comments about the lack of awareness amongst many scientists of the role that a worldview plays in how we think and defend our positions. In his post, "The Darwinist Propaganda Carnival continues...," he writes:

"Thus scientists have crossed over the line between the pursuit of truth to the defence of a worldview (italics and bold type mine). The odd thing is that they do not seem to realise what they are doing. Most of them simply have no concept that there is such a thing as a “worldview” they are so immersed in their own view of the world that they don’t really believe that there can be anything else other than naturalism without it deserving to be in a padded clinic.

Scientists (especially biologists trained to think in exclusively evolutionist fashion) are poorly placed to draw the distinctions between belief based upon evidence and belief based upon worldview.

Evolution provides poor resources for explaining the huge problems of the origins of life and the origins of huge amounts of complex machinery which makes our best efforts at technology look very clumsy indeed. To pretend that we have demonstrated that unintelligent causes provide a full explanation for all this is dishonest."

When our object of inquiry shifts, our method of inquiry may have to shift as well. This goes some way towards explaining how people who are brilliant in their field may begin to talk nonsense when they cross over to another field of knowledge that is inappropiate to their familiar methods.