To what extent are the various areas of knowledge defined by their methodologies rather than their content?
The essence of the Q: The question asks for a focus on its two key terms: 'methodology' and 'content'. It's a perennial issue that often disentegrates into the cliched distinction between the Sciences and Arts whereby the Arts are often downgraded as being the 'soft option'. Why is this? Why do we assume that those AOKs (or subjects) which are defined by method are somehow more superior than those which are more defined by their subject matter or content? A question tailor-made for the Sciences and one or two other AOKs, perhaps Mathematics and History, though it could be argued that method is also important in the Arts. Try to limit yourself to 2-3 AOKs and write in a detailed manner about their 'methodologies'. Think about the advantages and disadvantages of each method in aquiring, using knowledge and expanding knowledge. Think also about how each method changes over time; about the conditions required for such changes to take place. Avoid simply agreeing with the terms of the question. Reflect on the idea that while there are many Ethical theories to guide our behaviour, these are not really 'methods'; but this doesn't mean that Ethics is defined by its content.
Knowledge Issues: How do we know that a method works? What is the relationship between method and content? How far is method more important than content? What do we mean by the phrase 'there is method in the madness'? To what extent does the content of knowledge depend on method? In what ways do the imperfections of a method reduce the impact of knowledge? In what ways do reason and perception define scientific methodologies? How far does emotion define the content of the Arts and Ethics? What role has language to play in the methodologies of the AOKs?
Approaches:
Natural Sciences: Another question which demands analysis of the scientific method. Look at the inductive approach and the falsification approach. What are the benefits and problems of each? What is the 'content' of the natural Sciences? Data? Observations? Truth?
Human Sciences: The 'content' of the Human Sciences is to put it simply, human behaviour. How 'scientific' are the methods used to explain this behaviour in different fields such as economics and psychology? How far do these methods yield coherent explanations?
Mathematics: Mathematicians work according to certain rules of logic and reason to derive answers and explanation. The content of mathematical knowledge is arguably the most abstract and complex of all the AOKs which always begs the question: to what extent is this content applicable to the world? While we may struggle to comprehend Mathematical formulae in their purest form, we should never forget that they are fundamental to the invention of some of the items that we have come to rely on so much.
History: Is there such a thing as a historical 'method'? If there were, presumably historians would disagree as to how it should be used. Perhaps it's more reasonable to suggest that there is no single method to reconstruct the past, but that there are certain rules or protocols that a historian must follow when attempting to do this work. The rules provide a framwork for approaching the content of history - primary and secondary sources - without contraining the historian to 'prove' or 'falsify' a hypothesis. What would these 'rules' look like?
Arts: the content of the Arts is wide-ranging and various. When we experience art, we assume that what matters most is the subject matter and how accurately this represents the world of human experience. When we judge a piece of art, we take into account how it's made, the method involved, but does this always have an impact on our aesthetic experience of an art work? Perhaps the Arts are the only AOK in which we strive for a balance between method and content.
Ethics: It has been suggested above that Ethics is the only AOK which doesn't depend on methodology and even the theories devised to guide our ehtical behaviour can never provide anything more than guidelines. If the content of Ethics is moral knowledge, we're faced with some essential questions: where does this come from? How flexible and effective are our Ethical theories in applying their principles to real life sitautions?
