The Four Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy

Isaac Newton is known as one of the most important philosophers and scientists within the Western World. His work Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy published in 1687 helped others understand the differences between science and magical thinking. The work put forward basic concepts that have ever since been part of scientific thinking. It is a process of weighing, comparing, measuring, reasoning, and philosophizing.

Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things that such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

Confounding variables in research is not a beneficial event for furthering understanding. We sometimes have this natural propensity to become more complex, more theoretical, and abstract in our overall analysis. The more parsimonious the explanations the more likely it is to be correct. Researchers should seek the simple explanations first before become complex.

Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.

This is an integration of causes. When the same cause and effect is experienced in two different phenomenon there is likely to be a similar mechanism at play. Exploring and understanding these mechanisms and how they apply to different circumstances can lead one to understand more basic and fundamental principles of cause and effect.

Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever. 

When different bodies (i.e. organisms) share common principles they can be seen as similar. Analysis of these bodies may find an element that is present in all other properties. It is possible to think about how the ion spins around the atom, the atom spins around the object, the object spins around the earth, and the earth spins around the sun and the sun spins around the universe.  Gravity as an element is universal as far as we can understand.

Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

Experimental research is a process. What we believe today may not be what we believe tomorrow. As new analysis information comes forward the principles by which we base science change to incorporate that information. Validity is created through repetition. When it is not repeated in similar circumstances new explanations are needed.

Other Sources:

Fordham

Scire

VisionLearning

Maartens

Call for Papers: European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies

European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies (ECRM)

Date: June 16-17 2014, London, UK

The conference committee is attracted by both theoretical and practical papers on many subjects, as well as by innovative ideas and experiences. We are also interested in case studies that demonstrate how research strategies have been applied and the lessons learned. We welcome contributions on many topics, presenting a range of scholarly approaches. theoretical and empirical papers employing qualitative, quantitative and critical methods are eagerly awaited. Action research, case studies and work-in-progress/posters are welcomed approaches. PhD Research, proposals for roundtable discussions, non-academic contributions and product demonstrations based on the main themes are also invited. You can find full details in the submission types document (.pdf format).

§         Projective techniques

§         Scales development and constructs measurement

§         Methods for Ensuring Survey Research Quality

§         The use of qualitative and quantitative research methods

§         Theoretical and empirical research

§         IT adoption research

§         Economic research

§         Design-oriented research

§         Evaluation research

§         Dissertation development process

§         Developing research proposals

§         Research design and triangulation

§         Getting academic papers accepted by journals

§         Theory development

§         Concept verification

§         Research supervision

§         Research protocols

§         Research ethics

§         Research questions

§         Reflexivity

§         Field-work

§         Problem solving

§         Reflective practice

§         Usability scale implementation

§         Data structuring

§         Experimental procedures

§         Replication logic

§         Codes of conduct

§         Human subjects

§         Conjoint analysis, cluster analysis and segmentation

§         Business and management education

§         The role of Paradigms in business and IS research

§         Mutual research designs

§         Interpretative theory

§         Paradigmatic divide

§         Researcher roles

§         Focus groups

§         Marketing research

§         Mixed designs

§         Design research

§         Intercultural research

§         Agent based approaches in business research

§         Research in the Middle East

§         Delphi method

§         Case study research method

§         Action research

§         Computer modelling and simulation

§         Visual methodologies

§         Online research methods

§         Relativist approaches to qualitative research.

§         Use of self-research and autobiographies as a means of undertaking and reporting research

More Information

Organizational Development Presentation

Organizational Development: Finding Focus from Daniel Jordan

Mapping the DNA of American Natives

University of Illinois anthropology professor Ripan Malhi has analyzed DNA samples to try and determine how humans made their way to the Americas 15,000 years ago. They looked closely at mitochondrial genome that comes from mothers and found a stronger connection to the ancient past. The natives of Prince Rupert Island have the same genetic background as their ancestors. The natives of Northern California were complex hunter-gatherers while those of Mexico transitioned to agriculture. 

Two general theories appear to dominate the American migration theories. One is that people moved across an ice shelf from Europe and another is that Asianic people used boats to move down the California coast. No one really knows what happened. Both theories have been challenged at one time or another based upon artifact finding, carbon dating, and anthropology studies. 

The genetic studies are interesting in that they can help connect peoples from the Americas to those in other areas. Most researchers have little evidence that American human life generated from the southern jungles in South America. However, the genetic studies will further clear the hazy theories about where natives really came from or whether they were homegrown. 

Mitochondrial DNA is where energy from food is converted for use in other cells. The Mitochondrial DNA is standalone in the sense that each cell comes with their own DNA unconnected to other DNA in the body. This is one of the reasons why such DNA can be traced back through the mother’s line to ancient people. Scientists are using this DNA to understand the origin of people’s from around the world and previous studies in Europe indicate common migration.

Scienceworld

Guardian

Nature

DNA

How Does Improper Use of Power Limit Group Performance?

Most people who have been in the working world for sometime have come across a situation where a single person uses power and authority with a dominating communication style to push their will on a corporate board, team, or workplace. Research by Tost, et. al (2013) discusses some of the pitfalls of doing so and the eventual decline of team performance. As performance declines so does the ability of organizations to generate income through collaborative effort and idea generation. 

Politicized workplaces are stressful and generally unproductive. According to Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1988), when there is power inequality within the workplace political conflict rises and team performance declines. Teams should be well balanced to ensure that there is equity of power and the ability to discuss concepts openly for better idea generation. 

Power should be used to help push good ideas through to create greater productivity. However, when power is used to diminish the brainstorming process the best ideas do not come forward. There is a natural propensity for people to defer all major decisions to those that have the formal power. We all know that those that have the formal power do not always know the right answers or have failed to grasp alternative positions. Power, Leadership and Formal Authority can be summed up as follows:

Power: The ability of a person to control outcomes, how people perceive expenses, or push people in certain behaviors (Keltner, et. al, 2003). 

Leadership: The ability to influence others to work toward group objectives and goals (Bass, 2008). 

Formal Authority: Holding a position that that allows for a specific role within social hierarchy (Peabody, 1962).

Power, leadership, and formal authority maintain the ability to influence the outcomes of the group’s decisions. There are times when this can be beneficial once a final decision has been made and concise action is needed. However, preempting or cutting short the decision process may end up costing the organization later in terms of strategic outcomes as well as future willingness of employees to express themselves fully. 

Open communication within teams is essential in determining of the team’s performance (Dionne et. al, 2004).  Freethinking employees are more likely  to make novel solutions. Strategic decisions require the ability to perceive and understand various outcomes. As thoughts build on each other, open communication affords a better brain storming session. 

The authors conclude that the formalization of power into the hand of an individual limits the overall team performance. The leader’s subjective perspectives of power leads them to seek additional power derailing the performance process. The more power a leader feels the more their behavior changes and the more people defer to their power. Followers must willingly give up the power for the leader to gain additional influence. 

The research is important for avoiding the concepts of “group think” which limits a team’s performance. As leaders become more engrained in the perception of their power gain, the more their behavior prompts team members to give up the authority. The end result of such power deference is poor decisions, poor consequences, and potentially disastrous results. Even though it is possible for a single person to break the cycle by asking the right questions the social structure may try and force adherence leading to a lack of empowerment and performance for the whole group.

Bass, B. M. 2008. The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York: Free Press.

Dionne, et. al (2004). Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Management, 17: 177–194.

Eisenhardt, K.  & Bourgeois, L. (1988). Strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 737–770.

Keltner, et. al. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110: 265–284.

Peabody, R. (1962). Perceptions of organizational authority: A comparative analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6: 463–482.

Tost, et. al. (2013). When power makes others speechless: the negative impact of leader power on team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 56 (5).