Describe Platt's Methods Of Strong Inference Case Study

Kathryn Schulz argues in “Evidence”, a chapter of her book called Being Wrong, that we need to “learn to actively combat our inductive biases: to deliberately seek out evidence that challenges our beliefs, and to take seriously such evidence when we come across it” (Schulz, 377”). By attending to counterevidence we can avoid making errors in our conclusions.

He explains why UCTs are as popular as they are in modern society, and why people should nevertheless disregard and approach them with caution. What Keeley refers to as “virtues” are the reason for the popularity of UCTs. He gives the virtue of explanatory reach as the first and main reason for UCTs popularity, which is the account of all knowledge including errant data. This is in stark contrast to the received theory, which is imperfect by nature. This quality of UCTs is particularly attractive because it appeals to human rationality by allowing for no loopholes. Keely argues that errant data alone is not significant enough, and that a theory should never fit all of the data. This leads into one of the main points, concerning falsifiability and skepticism. Unfalsifiability is acceptable when the item or person under investigation is not actively trying to escape from the investigator. Keeley contends that the problem is not the innate unfalsifiability, but rather the increasing amount of skepticism required. Keely seeks a hole in the concept of conspiracy theories that accounts for a person’s innate sense that belief in a particular conspiracy theory is not justified. In the case of the natural sciences, falsifiability is acceptable because of the rigorous protocols in place, and therefore, we are warranted in believing scientific claims.

Barry opens his nonfiction text by emphasizing that certainty is a confident resilience while uncertainty produces frailty, but in a way that sends out opposite outcomes. He enhances this purpose by constantly using repetition with the word uncertainty to amplify how scientific research is an uncertain apparatus. By way of illustration,

4. The paper must logically develop the thesis in a way that leads to the conclusion, and that development must be supported by facts, fully

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

Grinnell explains that when scientists make a discovery, they cannot claim it as a scientific fact until they have convinced the scientific community of its legitimacy; therefore, a discovery that has not entered the second conversation of Grinnell’s cyclical model is only a proto-scientific claim. This distinction is an extension of Grinnell’s argument regarding subjectivity and inter-subjectivity. Furthermore, when a scientist make a discovery, it is deemed as proto-scientific since its interpretation could have been influenced by the scientist’s subjective experience; however, once the scientific community inter-subjectively agrees on the legitimacy of the claim, it becomes scientific. Credibility is the process by which this transformation

Multiple experiments have been conducted in which experts or professionals are able to use their extensive prior knowledge in their subjects to “thin slice” and come to a valid conclusion with respect to their field of study. There is no magic or science fiction to these decisions; they are simply made by the unconscious taking over our cognitive functions and delivering a preliminary assumption in which we, as the persons, can choose to accept or neglect the initial decision. The psychological studies

Identify the author’s use of the three elements: experiment, correlation, and speculation to support assertions.

However with advantages come disadvantages. For example, with correlational studies there is no background information obtained. Therefore, the reliability of the correlational studies is questioned.

Considering that Bill’s interpretation of scientific observation rests on human assumptions, for Bill, assumptions are necessary for understanding origins history. Accordingly, Bill uses assumptions as a starting point for thinking.

BonJour manages to defend the claim that a priori justification is necessary in order to avoid a severe, indefensible skepticism and demonstrates that any argument against a priori justification would undermine itself. This dialectical argument demonstrates that a denial of a priori justification is not only unsatisfactory, but impossible for the sake or argumentation. An empiricist critic could only appeal to pragmatism while accepting skepticism or surmount the impossible task of empirical justification of inference. This dialectical argument is by far BonJour's

Methodologically, the hypothesis is not founded upon methodological impartiality. One of the vital limitations is the absence of

One of the greatest dangers to scientific studies is the "confirmation bias". When a researcher is trying to collect documents and publications for what is studying or analyzing, it is very likely that only see, or just to notice what "it suits" for what he wants to prove. Moreover, even almost unconsciously, it is liable to see more quickly connections with other publications that seem to corroborate their investigations. Unfortunately, this "confirmation bias" affects not only scientific studies. It concerns us all. In today's article, I intend to show by example how to detect this phenomenon and some techniques to try to avoid it.

Upon further deliberation, driven by the evaluation of my peer's speeches, I have revised my view on the true extensiveness of the concept of Discovery.

Human beings are inherently flawed creatures. Through faults in reason and sense perception we interpret the world not as it truly is. Both the Human and Natural Sciences are tools to understand the world and are a lens in which to comprehend ideas not readily available to us purely through common sense logic and sense perception. The implications made in the title are that the inductive scientific method, when removed from error and bias, provides unequivocal and unobjectionable objective truth. The