This document discusses the phenomenal creation of knowledge through examining human experience. It explores how both subjective and objective analysis can work together to form knowledge. Subjective analysis through things like intuition and context help form hypotheses, while objective analysis through scientific reasoning can help discover further truths. The document examines various epistemological theories and the views of Descartes and Locke on innate knowledge to discuss how experience, rationalism and empiricism influence our understanding of phenomena and the creation of knowledge. It analyzes how subjective and objective analysis can be unified to understand human experience rather than viewed as separate and conflicting.

1. Running head: THE PHENOMENAL CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE 1
The Phenomenal Creation of Knowledge
William C. B. Harding
Grand Canyon University
December 9, 2015

2. THE PHENOMENAL CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE 2
The Phenomenal Creation of Knowledge
Instincts and intuition are personal tools for examining and explaining our understanding
of the phenomena associated with human experience such that a refined hypothesis or idea can
be formed that leads to the creation of knowledge through scientific reasoning. Moreover, and
according to Dewey (1948), the exploration of the mind-body relationship with respect to human
experience and prior knowledge is more than a study of observable stimuli and response such
that experience is “. . . a patchwork of disjoined parts, a mechanical conjunction, or unallied
processes.” (p. 356) Specifically, mind and body are connected through a seemly disparate
relationship between an individual’s sensing and response, where the context of an experience
influences its interpretation. With that in mind, this paper explores the proposal that the
knowledge of human experiences and phenomenon cannot align singularly within the constraints
of natural science and that the seed of knowledge is a system of orderly thoughts built off
rational truth, which form the foundation for the discovery of further truths (Stumpf & Fieser,
2015).
Relating the influence that context has on the mind-body relationship in understanding
experience and acquired knowledge, the views of innate knowledge as presented by René
Descartes and John Locke help to form a foundation for discussing the objective and subjective
examination of human experiences. Furthermore, Descartes and Locke’s contrasting
perspectives, viewed through the lens of ontology and epistemology, assists in understanding the
various themes that are presented in this paper. Whereas, Descartes infers that knowledge is
resultant from the combination of prior knowledge and real experiences, such that even the
simple elements that compose unreal concepts/objects are in fact real (i.e., size, time, shape)
(Descartes & Cottingham, 2013). Conversely, Locke dismisses the theory of innate ideas, where

3. THE PHENOMENAL CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE 3
individuals begin their existence void of knowledge to the extent that it is acquired only through
experiences and self-reflection (Stumpf & Fieser, 2015).
With that in mind, this paper synthesizes many relevant articles and examines various
epistemological theories for evaluating the phenomena of human experience. From the
examination of those theories, through the lens of rationalism and empiricism, a hypothesis is
offered proposing the validity of objective and subjective analysis working in concert to form the
foundation of instinctive/intuitive ideation that leads to the discovery of knowledge through
scientific reasoning. Notwithstanding, though this paper also proposes a harmonious alignment
of objectivism and subjectivism, where the extraction of either “. . . causes a disintegration of the
process . . .” (Gibbs, 1979, p. 129), an examination of the individual themes discovered within
each of the evaluated articles will be discussed.
Knowledge Gleaned from Rationalism and Empiricism Views
The epistemological view of human experience and associated phenomena has vacillated
in its interpretation as well as divided the field of psychology as that view relates to objective
and subjective perspectives. Whereas, it is posited that early theorist focused more energy on
refuting other theories and making a name in the field of psychology, than attempting to create a
harmonious unified theory where objective and subjective/interpretive methods of analysis could
coexist. Such is the case as discovered within the articles that were examine for this paper,
where modern theorist suggest that the division within psychological schools of thought exists
and that for psychology to be recognized as a specialized science, unification regarding the
methods and analysis must be achieved (Charles, 2013). Moreover, theorist such as Clegg
(2013) appeared metaphorically ready to throw in the towel through his inference that the
fragmentation between the various schools of psychological will result in the dismantling of the

4. THE PHENOMENAL CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE 4
field of study, unless unification at all levels (i.e., methods, analysis, subjects) can be realized.
Similarly, though the intent of other theorist was to discuss concepts such as humanistic and
positive psychology or hypnosis, the message that was gleaned from their discussions was that
alignment of rationalist and empiricist views would never be achieved (Vandenberg, 2010;
Waterman, 2013).
Gray Lines Divide Subjective and Objective Analysis
Distinct as the division between subject and objective methods of analysis may appear
there are emerging proposals that support unification of the methods, where educators are being
encourage to teach students to embrace both science and idealization concepts when examining
the phenomena of human experience. According to Dahlin (2003), by not teaching both the
scientific and philosophical perspective on phenomenon, students are not being given a frame of
reference for understanding human experience from an ontological phenomenon point of view.
Furthermore, as emerging theorist start to examine the phenomena of human experience and as
science conceptualizes the mind-body relationship, the divisions between subjective and
objective analysis becomes blurred. That point is further emphasized in McConnell-Henry,
Chapman, and Francis’ (2009) examination of Martin Heidegger's subjective/interpretive
methods and Edmund Husserl's objective methods of understanding as it relates to the role that
context plays in analyzing phenomenon associated with human experience.
The question of whether subjective methods or objective methods of analysis are better
appears to be a common theme within many articles that discuss psychology’s realignment with
natural sciences or its emergence as a distinct science. That question has weaved its way into
virtually every psychological discussion, which is exemplified in Gibbs’ (1979) theory of
ecologically oriented inquiry, where it is suggested that both inductive and deductive reasoning

5. THE PHENOMENAL CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE 5
is valid in that their unification “. . . corresponds to a transcending of objectivist and subjectivist
fallacies in epistemological theory.” (p. 137) That being considered, can objective and
subjective analysis of human experience coexist or will the division between the two methods
lead to the psychology being fractured and absorbed by other sciences such as physics,
chemistry, and neurology.
Subjective Analysis of Human Experience
Examining subjective analysis of the phenomena associated with human experience, from
the perspective of empiricism, helps to determine its function, through isolation from objective
analysis. That view of subject or interpreted assessment can yield fruitful data, but that data does
not enable the individual to achieve results that can be considered as derived through scientific
reasoning. With that in mind, insight gleaned from a few theorists may help to shed light on the
concept of subjective analysis and enable an individual to reflect on its purpose.
Murphy, Alexander, and Muis’ (2012) epistemological view of knowledge is best
described in their statement that regardless of the theories of where knowledge comes from or
where it resides, it cannot exist as unexamined beliefs. That single statement and its inference to
the subjective assessment of phenomena, further supports the theory that knowledge is a
cognitive construct (i.e., inside the mind) as well as a social construct (i.e., outside the body)
(Murphy, Alexander, & Muis (2012).
Correspondingly, Dewey’s (1948) explanation of subjective interpretation of human
experience is defined as phenomena outside of the observable sensation and movement, such that
the inclusion of “. . . an anticipatory sensation . . .” (p. 363) is introduced as part of the
aggregation of parts that express the entire human experience. That said, human experience is

6. THE PHENOMENAL CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE 6
the subjective study of phenomenon that are more than just the observable parts associated with
stimuli and response (Dewey, 1948).
Accordingly, and relating subjective interpretation to the method of inductive reasoning,
it is posited that attempting to prove a hypothesis through inductive reasoning is flawed in that
no matter how many theories or predictions can prove the correctness of a hypothesis
(Wilkinson, 2013). As is suggested by Hume (1963), nature does not conform to a set of
consistent rules, where theorizing truth without the consideration for the chaotic aspect of nature,
will result in disputable conclusions.
Objective Analysis of Human Experience
Following the examination of subjective analysis of the phenomena associated with
human experience from the perspective of empiricism, it is then necessary to examine objective
analysis from the perspective of rationalism. That examination will assist with the understanding
that though both subjective and objective analysis methods can yield interesting results, applying
the methods separately without the benefit of the other, will yield results that either lack
scientific methods or are too vague as to derive any conclusive results.
That said, the theorist Edmund Husserl offers an interesting perspective on objective
evidence where it is inferred that the observable connection between consciousness and an object
are declared as objective evidence of phenomenon (Vernon, 2005). Hussel’s view may not have
been the most popular at the time, but he built on solid system of beliefs in human consciousness
where he proposed that as “. . . an act of consciousness reaches its object, evidence will have
occurred, and we will thereby have the experience of certainty.” (Vernon, 2005, p. 290)
Husserl’s view, which casts doubt on subjective interpretation, is best examined within
his proposal that in transcendent consciousness there is a connection maintained with

7. THE PHENOMENAL CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE 7
consciousness, where our vision resides outside of consciousness (Vernon, 2005). Moreover, a
modification of Husserl’s transcendent consciousness theory might read as; a candle is lit and we
see the light, where in seeing the light we see ourselves seeing, but we miss that the candle was
lit, such that we could see.
Unification of Subjective and Objective Analysis
As we move through discussions of subjective and objective analysis, we see how those
methods align with the concepts of inductive and deductive reasoning, where the overall goal is
to discover irrefutable truth. That alignment between subjective analysis and induction as well
as the alignment between objective analysis and deduction forms a methodology, where there is
the establishment of a mutual dependency (i.e., unification) between the components. That
unified methodology is crucial to the successful building of a harmonious and foundational
relationship between the separatist psychology camps that stand behind the banners of either
subjective/interpretive or objective analysis of human experience.
Using the unified methodology concept and considering the writings of early theorists, it
is evident that awareness of the divisions existed and that attempts were being made to
reconstitute the field of psychology. Working within the theories associated with induction and
deduction, it is postulated that theorist such as Dewey (1910) were creating concepts that could
unify and support the entirety of psychology. Whereas, it was stated that if the application of
inductive reasoning is the formulation of a premise and the use of deductive reasoning is to result
in a clear conclusion, then the two methods work together such that empirical results cannot be
achieved by separating the methods and attempting to use them independent of each other
(Dewey, 1910). Similarly, the two methods of reasoning ". . . are bound tightly together."
(Dewey, 1910, p. 81), where the idea can partially be found within the conclusion and the

8. THE PHENOMENAL CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE 8
conclusion is partially within the idea. With those statements being considered, the posited idea
that psychology’s divergent views of subjective and objective analysis could be unified within
the boundaries of induction and deduction, which correspondently aligns within theory that from
simple elegance emerges truth.
Conclusion
As was discussed within this paper, there are valid arguments relating to the use of only
objective or subjective methods for analysis, but what was also shown is that those methods can
be used together to realize knowledge characterized as scientific reasoning. Moreover, the
discussions regarding the alignment of inductive, deductive, abductive, and even hypothetico-
deductive reasoning support the proposal that the unification of subjective and objective methods
of analysis may be possible. Key to that unification is the agreement by theorist that psychology
should continue to grow and that instead of trying to push a round peg into a square hole, such is
the case in aligning psychology within the spectrum of existing sciences, theorist should band
together to redefine that spectrum, where science should allow for the acquisition of data through
subjective interpretation. That spectrum redefinition effort or scientific transformation should
provide for the inclusion of human experiential components that are judged as known using
innate and/or prior knowledge.
That said, this paper successfully examined concepts and methods used to analyze
phenomena associated with human experience, where the hypothesis was supported in that
objective and subjective analysis can be used to form the foundation of instinctive/intuitive
ideation that leads to the discovery of knowledge. Thus, the ontological view of interpreting
phenomena and acquiring knowledge through inductive reasoning combined with intuition and
instinctual assessments, is supported through the proposed solution of scientific spectrum

9. THE PHENOMENAL CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE 9
redefinition and subjective/objective unification. That concept is further supported by Dewey’s
(1948), inference to the role that ontology plays through the interpretation of human experience
as well as Heidegger’s proposal that ontology is the truest method for assessing human
experiences such as pain, suffering, hunger, and procreation (Ciocan, 2008). Additionally, the
data that supports this paper’s hypothesis is able to cast light on to the epistemological question
of where knowledge comes from and where does it reside. Specifically, knowledge is acquired
through the formulation of a question and an idea, where it is composed of innate knowledge,
instinctive/intuitive examination of phenomena, and interpretation of those phenomena (i.e.,
through induction). As an individual then uses the ontological results to deduce the truth of the
results, knowledge will be exposed which will then be consumed, retained, and shared as it
becomes an integral part of by the mind and body experience.

10. THE PHENOMENAL CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE 10
References
Charles, E. P. (2013). Psychology: The empirical study of epistemology and phenomenology.
Review Of General Psychology, 17(2), 140-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032920
Ciocan, C. (2008). The question of the living body in Heidegger's analytic of Dasein. Research
In Phenomenology, 38(1), 72-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156916408X262811
Clegg, J. W. (2013). The fragmented object: Building disciplinary coherence through a
contextual unit of analysis. Review Of General Psychology, 17(2), 151-155.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032926
Dahlin, B. (2003). The ontological reversal: a figure of thought of importance for science
education. Scandinavian Journal Of Educational Research, 47(1), 77.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313830308606
Dewey, J. (1910). Systematic Inference: Induction and Deduction. In , How we think (pp. 79-
100). Lexington, MA, US: D C Heath. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10903-007
Dewey, J. (1948). The reflex arc concept in psychology, 1896. In W. Dennis, W. Dennis (Eds.) ,
Readings in the history of psychology (pp. 355-365). East Norwalk, CT, US: Appleton-
Century-Crofts. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11304-041
Descartes, R., & Cottingham, J. (2013). René Descartes: Meditations on First Philosophy: With
Selections from the Objections and Replies. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from
http://eddiejackson.net/web_documents/Spark%20Notes%20Meditations.pdf
Gibbs, J. C. (1979). The meaning of ecologically oriented inquiry in contemporary psychology.
American Psychologist, 34(2), 127-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.2.127
Hume, D. (1963). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

11. THE PHENOMENAL CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE 11
McConnell-Henry, T., Chapman, Y., & Francis, K. (2009). Husserl and Heidegger: exploring the
disparity. International Journal Of Nursing Practice, 15(1), 7-15 9p.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-172X.2008.01724.x
Murphy, P. K., Alexander, P. A., & Muis, K. R. (2012). Knowledge and knowing: The journey
from philosophy and psychology to human learning. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T.
Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, J. Sweller, ... J. Sweller (Eds.) , APA
educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp.
189-226). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/13273-008
Stumpf, S. E., & Fieser, J. (2015). Rationalism on the continent. In Greenberger, S. (Ed.).
Theories of Inquiry. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Retrieved from
http://www.gcumedia.com/digital-resources/mcgraw-hill/2015/theories-of-inquiry-
bundle_ebook_1e.php
Vandenberg, B. R. (2010). Evidence, ontology, and psychological science: The lesson of
hypnosis. Journal Of Theoretical And Philosophical Psychology, 30(1), 51-65.
http://dx.doi.org/1010.1037/a0016665
Vernon, R. F. (2005). Peering into the foundations of inquiry: An ontology of conscious
experience along Husserlian lines. Journal Of Theoretical And Philosophical Psychology,
25(2), 280-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0091263
Waterman, A. S. (2013). The humanistic psychology–positive psychology divide: Contrasts in
philosophical foundations. American Psychologist, 68(3), 124-133.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032168

12. THE PHENOMENAL CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE 12
Wilkinson, M. (2013). Testing the null hypothesis: The forgotten legacy of Karl Popper?.
Journal Of Sports Sciences, 31(9), 919-920.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.753636