An Methodology Suitable For Scientific Education

The reading by William McComas covered the ten most popular myths in the world of science. Widespread believed myths such as a hypothesis being nothing more than just an educated guess and the idea that science can answer all questions were mentioned in the text. The author not only lists the ten myths but also debunks them with explanations and states that students such as myself believe most of these myths. He attributes the belief of these myths by students to a lack of science philosophy content in teacher education programs and the misguided teaching of the nature of science in high school textbooks.

The purpose of this article is to inspect the possible link between teachers’ visions of the growth of scientific knowledge and the methods they use to help students construct a knowledge of science. Teachers’ views about science influenced not only lessons about the nature of science but also shaped an implicit curriculum concerning the nature of scientific knowledge. The study used sampling to find seven teachers. During the interview, the teachers were questioned about their syntactical knowledge. Syntactical knowledge refers to by Brickhouse as the methods used in a discipline to construct knowledge (e. g. , how experimentation and evidence influence the generation of scientific theories, how theories are used in generating new knowledge,

The idea of empirical knowledge differs sharply from other forms of knowledge not only in content but more in logic. Empirical knowledge tends to be created using deductive reasoning rather than inductive reasoning. In fact much of the scientific methodology depends heavily on deductive reasoning and quantitative methodology for knowledge construction. It is at this point an important contribution of Hume is noted. Hume with strong logic addresses the "problem of induction" and thus gives life to deduction (Burton 1846). Hume examines the challenges with human reasoning when he considers the problem with induction.

Pedagogical is related to the way that early year’s practitioners and teachers teach the children. There are a lot of different studies of teaching methods and all have a strong evidence base. The teachers are involved in promoting effective learning that is beneficial to the children. Early years practitioners and teachers focus on structured learning so that the children are enjoying learning to read and write as well as learning how to use numbers mathematically and problem solve. The teachers and early year’s practitioners look for different approaches to the children’s play that will help them learn and develop on new skills while they are playing. An example of a pedagogical approach is that the teacher’s and practitioners use open and

2. The Scientific Method deals with rationalism and empiricism: formal structured proofs and observable, concrete

Chalmers (2013) has claimed that ‘see is believing’ is a misleading when making a scientific claim. A high proportion of people believe that ‘science is derived from the facts’ is a distinctive feature of scientific knowledge. (Chalmers, 2013) However, they possibly not familiar with the accurate definitions of the word ‘science’ and its distinguished properties with non-science and pseudo-science. This essay is intended to illustrate the difference between science, non-science, and pseudo-science, and attention will be paid to the fact that non-scientific explanations could be correct in several areas. A discussion of the appropriately responds to the situation when a science explanation clash with a non-scientific explanation would be provided in the last section.

In science, one system of deduction has brought about many significant breakthroughs, more than any other used. This system is called the Scientific Method, and without it, mankind would not be as advanced as it is today.

The following essay aims to discuss the inconsistencies between the inductivist and Popper’s points of view of science rationality of science in light of claims that the scientific method is inductive yet an inductive method is no. I think is rational to say that inductivist view of science has significant contradiction that Popper’s view solves. To support Popper’s view my argument will introduce the inductivist and falsificationsist views and I will focus in showing the issues of considered science as objective, scientific knowledge as proven and nature as uniform as well as the differences between inductivism and falsificationism to the creation of hypothesis.

The Hypothetico-Deductive model is considered by some to be the hallmark of scientific research methods. The model is predicated on obtaining information in an effort to confirm or reject the hypothesis developed. This methodology requires the researcher to ask questions, hone in on the issue through preliminary research, formulate hypothesis and measurements, test, draw conclusions, refine and report. In order for the model to be effective the question being addressed by the researcher must be testable. This means there is practical feasibility of producing counterexamples. For example answering the question of “does God exist?” would not facilitate an appropriate use of the

The inductivist account of science recognizes five steps which are essential to scientific progress. First, scientists compile a large body of facts from observation and experiment. Using the principle of induction, these facts can be generalized to form the basis for a theory or law. Then, once a theory has been developed, scientists can use the theory as part of a valid logical argument to make new predictions or explanations of phenomena. According to Chalmers, the inductivist account has “a certain appeal” to it, namely, that all of scientific progress can be seen as the result of five fundamental leaps of thought (54). “Its attraction lies in the fact that it does seem to capture in a formal way

In this essay I attempt to answer the following two questions: What is Karl Popper’s view of science? Do I feel that Thomas Kuhn makes important points against it? The two articles that I make reference to are "Science: Conjectures and Refutations" by Karl Popper and "Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?" by Thomas Kuhn.

The first lab I ever did in Biology 101 was about the scientific method. The scientific method is used to solve everyday problems. I learned about all the steps it takes to carry out the scientific method completely. This lab taught me the basics of how any scientific experiment is performed. The first part of the scientific method is to begin making observations and asking questions about different situations. It is important to always check accumulated sources of scientific data to gain information about any situation that’s being observed. The next part of the scientific method that should completed is formulating a hypothesis. In other words, a hypothesis is what will lead to the formation of a statement that can be tested. Usually when a hypothesis is being tested, a controlled experiment is the type to use.

Karl Popper is commonly regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science in the 20th Century. He is well known for his rejection of the inductivist viewpoint of the scientific method, in which one uses observation to propose a law to generalize an observed pattern, and later confirm that law through more observation. Popper states that “induction cannot be logically justified” (Popper 14). Inductivism relies on the process of inductive reasoning which is a logical process in which multiple premises, all thought to be true and found to be true most of the time, are combined to obtain a conclusion and in many cases formulate a law or theory. Popper rejected the inductivist viewpoint in favor of a theory called empirical falsification which holds that a theory can never be proven, but it can be falsified, and therefore it can and needs to be scrutinized through experimentation.

In the 17th century Francis Bacon introduced induction as the new method for producing scientific theories. However inductive reasoning is riddled with problems that make it unsatisfactory for demarcating science. Hume’s problem of induction

Authors: Judy McKimm MBA, MA (Ed), BA (Hons), Cert Ed, FHEA Visiting Professor of Healthcare Education and Leadership, Bedfordshire & Hertfordshire Postgraduate Medical School, University of Bedfordshire Carol Jollie MBA, BA (Hons) Project Manager, Tanaka Business School, Imperial College London This paper was first written in 2003 as part of a project led by the London Deanery to provide a web-based learning resource to support the educational development of clinical teachers. It was revised by Judy McKimm in 2007 with the introduction of the Deanery’s new web-based learning package for clinical teachers. Each of the papers provides a summary and background reading on a core topic in