Summary of the Book of Thinking - Episode Three
There are two ways of thinking: the rational and the scientific. The rational should be the foundation because it includes experience and observation, leading to a definitive judgment about the existence or non-existence of something, even if the essence of the thing is speculative. The scientific method is only suitable for material things and may judge the existent as non-existent. When a result obtained by the rational method contradicts a result obtained by the scientific method, the rational method is preferred because its results are definitive.
The logical method is one of the methods of the rational approach. It is based on building an idea on an idea until it reaches the senses, such as saying that a board is wood and that wood burns, and therefore the board burns. If the ideas are correct, the result is correct, and if they are wrong, the result is wrong. Since it goes back to the senses, instead of testing the result obtained from the logical method with the rational method, we should go directly to the rational method.
The scientific method does not assume the absence of a prior opinion as an opinion, but rather the existence of a prior judgment. The intention is not the absence of a prior opinion or prior belief, but rather a prior judgment, because without prior information, there is no thinking. As for the researcher abandoning the prior opinion, if the research is speculative and its result is speculative, and the prior opinion is definitive, then the opinion should not be abandoned. But if the research is definitive, then all prior information must be abandoned for the sake of the research's integrity. Objectivity, on the other hand, means, in addition to abandoning the prior opinion, confining the research to the subject matter, so we do not research any other matter. When researching a legal ruling, we do not research harm or people's interests.
The logical method is susceptible to deception and misdirection because it is built on premises, and the correctness or error of these premises cannot be easily recognized in all cases, and it may lead to contradictory results on the same topic, so this method must be rejected, as it does not begin with the senses first, but it ends with a sense of reality. The method of the Qur'an is the rational method, as it commands the use of the senses to reach the truth, for example, it commands to look at how camels were created, and this is in the field of establishing proof, but in the field of issuing rulings, it gives tangible rulings on tangible facts, and judging reality comes with the rational method.
The rational method is the one that leads to the result closest to correctness in what is speculative, and to the definitive result in what is definitive. Given the constant renewal, it is necessary to research several matters other than the method of thinking because it may be subject to slipping, such as what is correct to think about and what is not correct.
What is correct to think about is what is perceived by the senses, because the definition of the rational method is the transfer of reality, and thinking about what is not perceived by the senses is the knot of knots, and the results of philosophy are nothing but figments of the imagination and assumptions because they are not about what is perceived by the senses. Likewise, saying that the brain is divided is something that has not been perceived by the senses. As for things that we do not sense but rather sense their effect, it is possible to research their existence using the rational method because the effect indicates existence and not the nature of the existent.
The attribute is not the effect, and therefore it is not possible to judge the thing through it. For example, saying that Islam is a religion of honor does not mean that the Muslim is honorable, because honor is not the religion, but rather an idea from its ideas, besides the fact that embracing a religion does not mean adhering to it, and adhering to it is an attribute.
It cannot be said that restricting thinking to what is perceived by the senses or its effect is making the scientific method the basis of thinking, and therefore where did the rational method go. It cannot be said that because the scientific method restricts the topic to the tangible that is subject to experimentation, it is a correct method, but the rational method restricts thinking to tangible things. All assumptions and imaginations are not thought; they were not produced by the rational method.
As for those who ask about the unseen - whether the unseen from the thinker or the unseen from the human - is thinking about it considered a rational process? The answer is that the unseen from the thinker is what is perceived by the senses, and therefore it is considered a rational process. If someone has not seen the Kaaba but thought about it, he has produced a thought. As for the unseen, if its origin and truth are proven with definitive evidence, then thinking about what results from it is thought, whether the correctness of its issuance from it is proven definitively or with a preponderance of doubt. If its issuance is proven definitively, then it must be believed with certainty, and if its issuance is proven with a preponderance of doubt, then it is permissible to believe it without certainty. As for what has not been proven to exist or be true, it is considered imagination.
