Argument That Scientists Should Provisionally Accept Constructivism?

12. Why are both natural AND controlled experiments necessary to increasing scientific understanding, and how do their roles in the scientific process differ?

The development of the scientific method in the late 1500’s to the early 1600’s was a crucial stepping-stone in the science community. The scientific method is based upon observations, hypotheses and experimentation. The concept is rather simple, and can be applied to many areas of study. Once an observation is made, the observer can make a hypothesis as to why that phenomenon occurs and can then design an experiment to prove whether or not that hypotheses is valid. Although the scientific method has been extremely useful in the discovery of various things from usages of medications to studying animal behavior, there are still those who question the usage of this tool. These critics claim that since

So, somebody can make a certain observation and come up with a hypothesis about how and why a phenomenon occurs the way it is. Hypothesis could be

The next step in the scientific method could be to take the data founded to create a conclusion.

In the two essays being discussed we learn that science has a vast range of definitions. Science is the effort to understand (or to understand better), the history of the natural world and how the natural world works with observable physical evidence as the base of understanding. Science is about how the hypothesis is developed and how well it is defended.

 Explain how the data collected will provide the data necessary to support or negate the hypothesis or proposition

The next step is to form a testable hypothesis, or educated guess. A hypothesis must phrased in a way that in which another person can test the same hypothesis to verify or discredit it. After the hypothesis is formed, the experimenter must choose and appropriate research study. For example, if a scientist want to do a study about the behaviors of a particular person, like in the case Phineas Gage and the psychological affects of the iron rod that shot through his head, than the scientist may want to conduct a case study. Once the research method is established and the study has been planned out, then it is time to conduct the experiment and collect the data. The final step is to analyze the data to see if it supports or rejects the hypothesis. If the results do not support the hypothesis, then one should revise their hypothesis. If the results do support the hypothesis, then the study should be replicated to validate this study. Sharing the results of the experiment with other members of the scientific community is also an important part is advancing one’s understanding of the particular

Throughout the passage, John M. Barry uses a variety of methods to describe the process of scientific research. The author gives us long metaphor where a scientific investigator is like a pioneer in an unexplored region of the world. The author also gives us a little bit of background information on characterizations needed for scientific research.

“Scientific research is for the curious and you have to precede significant problem and be committed to respond to that situation, so science is driven by need and it’s also incremental,” Morin said.

science a hypothesis is always trying to be proven like Galileo was doing but it

The humanistic thought that scientific discoveries should be backed up by substantial evidence brought about many firm theories

Popper thinks that it is their weakness. He contrasts Marxism with Einstein’s Gravitational Theory, noting the main difference is that Einstein’s theory is a risky prediction. He says, "The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation…" Popper says that confirmations or verifications are easy to come up with for any theory; "Confirmations should only count if they are the result of risky predictions."

Popper opines that a significant problem with the scientific method is that scientists get so caught up in evidence that supports a specific conjecture that they either 1) fail to consider

Karl Popper was critical of inductive methods used in science. He argued that there is a chain of justifying arguments that could never be complete, therefore an original statement that is made can never receives the justification that it needs (Popper 505-506). He was a firm believer in the concept of falsification, emphasizing that we can never be sure that a theory is true but we can be sure that a theory is false. He continues to explain that all inductive evidence is limited: we do not observe the universe at all times and in all places. Popper identifies that no matter how many observations are made which confirm a theory there is always potential for future observations to refute the claim (Popper 426). For example, if millions of white swans were observed, using inductive reasoning, we could come up with a theory that all swans are white. However, no matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this information does not provide us with justification for the conclusion that all swans are white (Popper 426). Therefore induction cannot yield certainty. For scientists to continue to rely on inductive reasoning to

Assumptions in the title of this essay imply that results, theories and laws resulting from the current system of peer review multiple perspectives produce completely infallible objective truth, this is a false premise. Whilst the group of knowers known as the scientific community have collectively less bias than one lone knower trying to understand the universe, there is still collective and engrained level of institutional bias. The same problems of confirmation bias and expectation are present in a group of knowers just as they are with one single knower. According to Karl Popper (1902-1994) the best way to eliminate any expectation and confirmation bias was to falsify and disprove rather than confirm one’s hypothesis and predictions. Popper argues: no matter how convincing an argument or theory is, all that is needed to disprove it is one piece of valid counterclaiming evidence. Whilst this theory is valid on an individual level, it really becomes an effective tool in the objectivity of science on a large scale. Despite this attempt at objectifying and ‘protecting against’ error and bias it is inadequate due to inherent flaws in the scientific method. Induction, moving from the specific to the general, is the key element in scientific logic. Any theory or law ‘proved’ through this logic has some key flaws: the main flaw being that inductive logic can never be certain of any event happening or of any prediction. Richard van de Lagemaat